Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Trump is UNHINGED on Twitter today. It's actually funny (and very sad).  Suggesting Civil War, and that Schiff should be arrested....insisting rules have been changed that haven't been.  Man, he's all sorts of crazy.

At some point....he's going to have to swear in and testify.  And if I were him, and his supporters in the administration, that would make me break out in a cold sweat at night.  You think Clinton lying about a blow job is bad?  Trump can't complete a paragraph without lying. And you just know he's gonna do it under oath. Repeatedly

Honestly, guy would be better of resigning once the courts ultimately compel him to testify....it would be better for him, in the long run.

He won't though, his malignant narcissistic ego won't allow him to walk away with what little dignity he has left.

[tim_m]

Not sure how much of a role Trump played in any of that but regardless that every good news. That'll be a big boost for my state.

[tim_m]

  Putin says calls between him and Trump can't be released without his permission.

[tim_m]

And the hits just keep on coming. https://cnn.it/2mnZ1Po

[tim_m]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legal-experts-debunk-trumps-claim-whistleblower-rules-changed/story?id=65964036

[pilferk]

Not sure how much of a role Trump played in any of that but regardless that every good news. That'll be a big boost for my state.

Yup, any new jobs are good jobs!

It is odd, because typically presidential announcements of projects like this only happen when...you know...the administration is involved in negotiating them.

From all reports, that's not the case here. They are just "business news that happened".

Edit: So, I think what's happened is the people around him realize that defending him is almost impossible on this front.  So they're going to try to push "the economy is good" as his defense (or rather, why people should ignore him breaking the law).  It's the Robin Hood Defense.  Ignore the law breaking because "he does good".

OF course, we all know this president won't be able to stay on message.  He's already straying this morning......

[pilferk]

Putin says calls between him and Trump can't be released without his permission.

To be clear, there is no law, domestic or international, treatise, or even UN resolution that requires us to get permission to release ANY call with ANY foreign leader.

So, this is untrue.

We absolutely CAN release those call without his permission.

And Russia can choose to never have another one, or to cut off diplomatic relations with the US and deal with the crippling sanctions we've imposed forever, or something else.

It's a fair argument if we SHOULD.....but we CAN.

[pilferk]

And the hits just keep on coming. https://cnn.it/2mnZ1Po

I mean....this seems a lot more appropriate than the Ukraine issue.  It deals with a publicly announced and active DOJ investigation (and not a debunked conspiracy theory or 10).  It doesn't specifically target a current political rival.  And it involves career DOJ officials working with Australia law enforcement to review "stuff".  It's not asking, really, for an investigation even.  Just a review of already generated case material.

I don't think this is a "bully pulpit" ask between a President and a PM.  It's an inter-agency coordination that should take place at a lower level.  Involving the president seems....IDK...unusual.  But not inherently bad.  I guess we'd need the transcript to get more specifics about how it was phrased....

[pilferk]

I'm just gonna leave this RIGHT here, in case anyone is confused about the legality of the Trump call with Ukraine.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702

And that's irrespective of asking a foreign government to interfere in our electoral process.

[tim_m]

And the hits just keep on coming. https://cnn.it/2mnZ1Po

I mean....this seems a lot more appropriate than the Ukraine issue.  It deals with a publicly announced and active DOJ investigation (and not a debunked conspiracy theory or 10).  It doesn't specifically target a current political rival.  And it involves career DOJ officials working with Australia law enforcement to review "stuff".  It's not asking, really, for an investigation even.  Just a review of already generated case material.

I don't think this is a "bully pulpit" ask between a President and a PM.  It's an inter-agency coordination that should take place at a lower level.  Involving the president seems....IDK...unusual.  But not inherently bad.  I guess we'd need the transcript to get more specifics about how it was phrased....

!

Seems a bit questionable at least.

[tim_m]

Putin says calls between him and Trump can't be released without his permission.

To be clear, there is no law, domestic or international, treatise, or even UN resolution that requires us to get permission to release ANY call with ANY foreign leader.

So, this is untrue.

We absolutely CAN release those call without his permission.

And Russia can choose to never have another one, or to cut off diplomatic relations with the US and deal with the crippling sanctions we've imposed forever, or something else.

It's a fair argument if we SHOULD.....but we CAN.

Exactly, he can piss and moan all he wants but if a request for the calls are made there is nothing he can do personally to prevent it.

[pilferk]

As predicted, back to hilariously unhinged again. Lying, saying he wants to break the law, asking for the arrest of a political rival.

 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Now this makes things more interesting......has this all been a set up?  Appears that Schiff just hit the fan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html?fbclid=IwAR3y4b3FtDVxtzv_TSigw_H83RCmrFlUxJw86qgrefI-ioalW5qscMF4BlQ

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Mr. Trump has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, even suggesting he could be arrested for treason. The president, who has also made thinly veiled threats against the whistle-blower and accused him of being partisan, is likely to use the revelation that the C.I.A. officer first approached the committee to try to undermine the complaint and suggest it was part of a Democratic plot against him.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

[sandman]

Now this makes things more interesting......has this all been a set up?  Appears that Schiff just hit the fan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html?fbclid=IwAR3y4b3FtDVxtzv_TSigw_H83RCmrFlUxJw86qgrefI-ioalW5qscMF4BlQ

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Mr. Trump has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, even suggesting he could be arrested for treason. The president, who has also made thinly veiled threats against the whistle-blower and accused him of being partisan, is likely to use the revelation that the C.I.A. officer first approached the committee to try to undermine the complaint and suggest it was part of a Democratic plot against him.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

WHOOPS!

Facts are not important these days. but you know it's pretty sad when the NY Times is calling you out.      this is the NY Times, so we have to take it with a grain of salt.
 
I've been pissing myself over Trump tweeting that video with the Biden quote, "photograph" song, and the golf photo. I know people who somewhat support trump and "put up" with him hate this kind of crap, but it cracks me the hell up.

regardless, this hoax is dead. NEXT!

(or are we already back to "he's too unhinged!"? it seems like the media and far left wing social media is debating this now. should know by tomorrow AM.)

[pilferk]

Now this makes things more interesting......has this all been a set up?  Appears that Schiff just hit the fan.

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Mr. Trump has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, even suggesting he could be arrested for treason. The president, who has also made thinly veiled threats against the whistle-blower and accused him of being partisan, is likely to use the revelation that the C.I.A. officer first approached the committee to try to undermine the complaint and suggest it was part of a Democratic plot against him.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

Read the article. Instead of the fox spin of the article.

They (the committee..via an aide) were asked, anonymously, about how best to elevate the complaint because they (the whistleblower) thought it was being mismanaged.

They (the committee) were given NO specific information about the substance of the complaint, or even who it was in relation to (meaning who the "other party" was...the President of the Ukraine), exactly.

In other words, nothing inappropriate. They were given very basic generalizations. 

But nice try at the whataboutism. Too bad there's literally no there, there.

They played it by the book.  Which totally sucks for Trump, because he can't pass this off as a hoax or a witch hunt.  He'll try, and some of his more.....let say intellectually dishonest or less intellectually curious, will buy it.  But the transcript, the complaint, and HIS OWN WORDS all lay it out.  There is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation.  There is more than enough words DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENTS MOUTH to make you question his actions. You can take solace in the fact that the Senate will never convict him, because they're power hungry troglodytes who care more about power than country.  But it sure looks like he did it.  And everyone knows it. Even you, I suspect, if you're being honest with yourself.

Trump clearly (and admittedly, in his own words, on TV) did something illegal.  I posted the statute, previously.  It's textbook.  It's practically an example.

Do you think what Trump did/said, given the read out, was OK?

Keep in mind, if you say "Yes"....you're saying it's OK when a Dem does it, next time.  You're saying it's totally OK for Lizzie Warren (for example) to call up a foreign leader and ask them to investigate Trump...or serve up dirt of some kind.

You really wanna say that? 

[pilferk]

So, today we have more inane rambling that is practically incoherent.  More calls for the arrest of his rivals, more lies, a fake photo of the Bidens playing golf with an AMERICAN (Hunter's  friend and business partner, Devon Archer) who has worked with Hunter for like 15 years or so (in the US, not the Ukraine) and now PROFANITY!   

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1179507564486303745?s=20

SAD (and hilarious...trumps tirade, that is).

Man, this guy is gonna give himself a myocardial infarction he's so worked up. Dems have taken up complete residence in his head, rent free.  I bet his BP is like 200/120.  Seriously, he needs to chill (or lay off the adderol). 

But to top it all off...did you see him with the president of finland, today? Holy shit, the guy has lost even being able to pretend to think about anything other than the Dems and impeachment.  Talk about do nothing? Yowza....

Given the past few days, I can't even imagine how rabid he's going to be if/when they draw up articles and vote!!!  I half expect naked Trump running through the white house gardens, snarling and howling at the moon!

And I'll leave you with THAT picture.

[tim_m]

Sandman must be reading a different article because that NYT article specifically states Schiff didn't know who it was or any info about the complaint, and gave advice on how to proceed to file the complain. Talk about a nothing burger.

[tim_m]

So, today we have more inane rambling that is practically incoherent.  More calls for the arrest of his rivals, more lies, a fake photo of the Bidens playing golf with an AMERICAN (Hunter's  friend and business partner, Devon Archer) who has worked with Hunter for like 15 years or so (in the US, not the Ukraine) and now PROFANITY!   

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1179507564486303745?s=20

SAD (and hilarious...trumps tirade, that is).

Man, this guy is gonna give himself a myocardial infarction he's so worked up. Dems have taken up complete residence in his head, rent free.  I bet his BP is like 200/120.  Seriously, he needs to chill (or lay off the adderol). 

But to top it all off...did you see him with the president of finland, today? Holy shit, the guy has lost even being able to pretend to think about anything other than the Dems and impeachment.  Talk about do nothing? Yowza....

Given the past few days, I can't even imagine how rabid he's going to be if/when they draw up articles and vote!!!  I half expect naked Trump running through the white house gardens, snarling and howling at the moon!

And I'll leave you with THAT picture.

Well that would certainly be a disturbing image.

[tim_m]

Now this makes things more interesting......has this all been a set up?  Appears that Schiff just hit the fan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html?fbclid=IwAR3y4b3FtDVxtzv_TSigw_H83RCmrFlUxJw86qgrefI-ioalW5qscMF4BlQ

Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower’s Accusations

WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a  whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials

The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff.

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Mr. Trump has focused his ire on Mr. Schiff amid the burgeoning Ukraine scandal, even suggesting he could be arrested for treason. The president, who has also made thinly veiled threats against the whistle-blower and accused him of being partisan, is likely to use the revelation that the C.I.A. officer first approached the committee to try to undermine the complaint and suggest it was part of a Democratic plot against him.

The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.

“We don’t call him shifty Schiff for nothing,” said Mr. Trump. “He’s a shifty dishonest guy.”

Mr. Schiff’s aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer’s accusations, Mr. Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to an inspector general and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Mr. Schiff never saw any part of the complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would deliver, Mr. Boland said.

“At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance,” he said. He said the committee received the complaint the night before releasing it publicly last week and noted that came three weeks after the administration was legally mandated to turn it over to Congress. The director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, acting on the advice of his top lawyer and the Justice Department, had blocked the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, from turning over the complaint sooner.

The future whistle-blower went to Mr. Schiff’s committee after he grew concerned about the first investigation he had touched off.

The C.I.A. officer first had a colleague take his concerns — in vague form — to the C.I.A.’s general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, who began a preliminary inquiry by contacting a deputy White House counsel, alerting the White House that complaints were coming from the C.I.A.

As C.I.A. and White House lawyers began following up on the complaint, the C.I.A. officer became nervous, according to a person familiar with the matter. He learned that John Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel and the legal adviser to the national security adviser, was among those scrutinizing his initial allegation.

Contacts in the National Security Council had also told the C.I.A. officer that the White House lawyers had authorized records of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky to be put in a highly classified computer system, meaning that the lawyers who were now helping the C.I.A. investigate the officer’s allegations were the same ones implicated in them. The officer has alleged that White House aides’ decision to store the call records more restrictively was itself an abuse of the system.

The C.I.A. officer decided the complaint he had brought to Ms. Elwood was at risk of being swept aside, prompting him to go to the lawmakers who conduct oversight of the intelligence agencies.

He followed the advice of Mr. Schiff’s aide and filed his complaint to Mr. Atkinson. And though Mr. Maguire blocked him from forwarding it to Congress, he did allow Mr. Atkinson to notify lawmakers of its existence.

The complaint was filed in consultation with a lawyer, officials said. “The intelligence community whistle-blower followed the advice of legal counsel from the beginning,” said Andrew Bakaj, the lead counsel for the whistle-blower. “The laws and processes have been followed.”

Filing a complaint with Mr. Atkinson gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information. While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.

Mr. Schiff released a letter seeking the complaint and suggested it could involve Mr. Trump or others in his administration. Mr. Schiff followed up by subpoenaing Mr. Maguire to testify before the intelligence committee.

Mr. Schiff’s intense push took Mr. Maguire and his aides by surprise, current and former intelligence officials said. In other cases of lawmakers seeking classified material that the intelligence agencies were reluctant to share, including whistle-blower complaints, both sides usually tried to resolve the matter by holding quiet discussions.

Officials in Mr. Maguire’s office, who did not know the details of the complaint, were puzzled why Mr. Schiff went public right away, eschewing the usual closed-door negotiations.

Congressional officials insisted that Mr. Schiff and his aides followed the rules. Whistle-blowers regularly approach the committee, given its role in conducting oversight of the intelligence agencies, Mr. Boland said.

“The committee expects that they will be fully protected, despite the president’s threats,” Mr. Boland said, referring to the whistle-blower without identifying his gender. “Only through their courage did these facts about the president’s abuse of power come to light.”

WHOOPS!

Facts are not important these days. but you know it's pretty sad when the NY Times is calling you out.      this is the NY Times, so we have to take it with a grain of salt.
 
I've been pissing myself over Trump tweeting that video with the Biden quote, "photograph" song, and the golf photo. I know people who somewhat support trump and "put up" with him hate this kind of crap, but it cracks me the hell up.

regardless, this hoax is dead. NEXT!

(or are we already back to "he's too unhinged!"? it seems like the media and far left wing social media is debating this now. should know by tomorrow AM.)

I don't think you're instating the word hoax. A hoax would be if it never happened. It did, we have the memo from Trump. I also wonder how much more outrageous his behavior has to get before you'll question it. If this were Obama or Bush, would you think it's still funny?

[tim_m]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-adam-schiff-cant-carry-pompeos-jock-strap such wonderful behavior and this is from a conservative source, so i can't be accused of sharing something from MSM.