The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[CAA Flagship]

I suppose that has to do with what Susan Rice said. Yes, she said some Obama call records were place on the "secret server." But she said there was a difference between that and what happened here:



https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-ad ... nistration

She allowed that SOME Obama conversations went to that server. But this is what she said about that:



So, once again, we have the "right" (which I have historically been a part of) being intellectually dishonest and distorting things.

How many other conversations of Trumps were on the more secure server? If that was the only conversation, you might have a leg to stand on, but after the discussions with Australia and Mexico were leaked, I would bet quite a few if not all were moved there.

What was there for Trump to hide in this call after seeing the transcripts? So exactly. Why the need to keep them on the server?

Obama's Admin didn't have the leakers to the extent Trump has had to deal with.
Common sense would tell you that if foreign leaders do not have confidence in the security of conversation details with the US, then they will stop picking up the phone. Sure, that goes both ways too. But many other governments deal with leakers much differently than we do.

[Skjellyfetti]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

[SeattleGriz]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

[css75]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

No vote, does that mean anything to you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I suppose that has to do with what Susan Rice said. Yes, she said some Obama call records were place on the "secret server." But she said there was a difference between that and what happened here:



https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-ad ... nistration

She allowed that SOME Obama conversations went to that server. But this is what she said about that:



So, once again, we have the "right" (which I have historically been a part of) being intellectually dishonest and distorting things.

John ... I’m going to give you a heads up here. Think of it as an FYI

When you are trying to make a point about people on the right distorting things it would help your credibility if you didn’t quote or reference the following people:

Susan Rice
Eric Holder
Alex Jones
Genghis Khan
Josef Goebbels
Hillary Clinton
Any 6 year old


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The premise I was operating under is that the reference to Obama keeping things on the "secret" server came from Susan Rice. I assumed that because people at right wing sites like The Daily Wire have been referring to her saying that. However, she also said that what Obama did was different in that stuff only went to the "secret" server if it had classified information in it.

I think she was the source of the reference to what Obama did. If I'm right about that there is nothing wrong with expanding upon what she said to accurately report that she was not talking about Obama doing the same thing Trump did when he put that call with the Ukraine President wherein he referenced investigating Biden on the "secret" server. I did not choose the source. I simply pointed out that the source did not say Obama did the same thing as Trump did.

[kalm]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

[CID1990]

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

The problem there is that the process itself becomes politicized, constituencies are insulted, and nothing happens.

Some of the most beneficial treaties and purchases the US has struck with other countries never would have happened if the negotiations leading to them were open to referendum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

The problem there is that the process itself becomes politicized, constituencies are insulted, and nothing happens.

Some of the most beneficial treaties and purchases the US has struck with other countries never would have happened if the negotiations leading to them were open to referendum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I would have said. Extactly.

[kalm]

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

The problem there is that the process itself becomes politicized, constituencies are insulted, and nothing happens.

Some of the most beneficial treaties and purchases the US has struck with other countries never would have happened if the negotiations leading to them were open to referendum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought about that and I get. It’s a valid point and I’ll cop to idealism vs pragmatism. But I also think of meeting short term objectives like in Charlie Wilson’s War in getting Israel and Egypt to secretly cooperate or working with Iran to keep the Soviets out of Central America. There are unintended consequences whether you do or don’t. If pure altruism drove our actions it would be one thing but sometimes these negations are driven by greed.

Shining city on a hill in name only. I understand why some are ok with that.

[SeattleGriz]

Triple bwahaha! No floor vote, says Pelosi.
Apparently impeachment will be a double secret process. Fail. And fail for everyone on this board who bought into this sham process.

As the great Greta Thunberg would say, "How dare you!"

[houndawg]

The problem there is that the process itself becomes politicized, constituencies are insulted, and nothing happens.

Some of the most beneficial treaties and purchases the US has struck with other countries never would have happened if the negotiations leading to them were open to referendum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I would have said. Extactly.

Too bad you aren't a bit quicker of wit

[houndawg]

Triple bwahaha! No floor vote, says Pelosi.
Apparently impeachment will be a double secret process. Fail. And fail for everyone on this board who bought into this sham process.

As the great Greta Thunberg would say, "How dare you!"

I don't think a floor vote matters - just sit back and let the CIA do their thing.

Which agency was among the very first that Trump picked a fight with?

Which agency changes nation's governments for a living?

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly what I would have said. Extactly.

Too bad you aren't a bit quicker of wit

Extactly!

[SeattleGriz]

Triple bwahaha! No floor vote, says Pelosi.
Apparently impeachment will be a double secret process. Fail. And fail for everyone on this board who bought into this sham process.

As the great Greta Thunberg would say, "How dare you!"

I don't think a floor vote matters - just sit back and let the CIA do their thing.

Which agency was among the very first that Trump picked a fight with?

Which agency changes nation's governments for a living?

I keep hearing that, but I'm starting to believe Trump is squeaky clean, as far as punishable crimes goes.

He obviously realized he didn't need to sleep with 16 year old girls, when 18 year olds threw themselves at him, so that common sense seems to have carried over to all aspects of his life. No need to commit a crime when I can do all this legally.

I'll be interested to see if Haspel makes it through all this.

[houndawg]

I don't think a floor vote matters - just sit back and let the CIA do their thing.

Which agency was among the very first that Trump picked a fight with?

Which agency changes nation's governments for a living?

I keep hearing that, but I'm starting to believe Trump is squeaky clean, as far as punishable crimes goes.

He obviously realized he didn't need to sleep with 16 year old girls, when 18 year olds threw themselves at him, so that common sense seems to have carried over to all aspects of his life. No need to commit a crime when I can do all this legally.

You can tell by his open and forthright manner that he has nothing to hide.

[SeattleGriz]

The overriding problem with Trump is that all of his decisions are based on how they benefit HIM rather than benefit the United States of America. I also believe that he has had some very bad hombres whispering in his ear from the start. He doesn't seem capable of making decisions based on his own self-confidence and knowledge......he just doesn't seem like as very smart or worldly guy.

He is built for television and applause.

For such a stupid shit, he sure seems to be getting stuff done. What does that say about all of Washington?

[CID1990]

The problem there is that the process itself becomes politicized, constituencies are insulted, and nothing happens.

Some of the most beneficial treaties and purchases the US has struck with other countries never would have happened if the negotiations leading to them were open to referendum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought about that and I get. It’s a valid point and I’ll cop to idealism vs pragmatism. But I also think of meeting short term objectives like in Charlie Wilson’s War in getting Israel and Egypt to secretly cooperate or working with Iran to keep the Soviets out of Central America. There are unintended consequences whether you do or don’t. If pure altruism drove our actions it would be one thing but sometimes these negations are driven by greed.

Shining city on a hill in name only. I understand why some are ok with that.

I said the most beneficial treaties and purchases

Our support of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan or for anti- Communist militias in Central America or for the Iran deal aren’t what I’m talking about here, but you’re living in a pipe dream if you think anyone is ever going to compel transparency in foreign policy... in all the cases I mentioned above, each one of them came about due to Congress relinquishing too much of its power to the executive to do those things

When I referred to treaties and purchases, I’m talking about SALT, START, the Louisiana Purchase, Seward’s Folly, etc. In the case of the major arms treaties, neither us nor the Soviets would have been at the table if our own electorate knew the entire negotiation processes. Those things do need to happen in confidence because otherwise nobody would be able to offer concessions to the other side.

[kalm]

I thought about that and I get. It’s a valid point and I’ll cop to idealism vs pragmatism. But I also think of meeting short term objectives like in Charlie Wilson’s War in getting Israel and Egypt to secretly cooperate or working with Iran to keep the Soviets out of Central America. There are unintended consequences whether you do or don’t. If pure altruism drove our actions it would be one thing but sometimes these negations are driven by greed.

Shining city on a hill in name only. I understand why some are ok with that.

I said the most beneficial treaties and purchases

Our support of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan or for anti- Communist militias in Central America or for the Iran deal aren’t what I’m talking about here, but you’re living in a pipe dream if you think anyone is ever going to compel transparency in foreign policy... in all the cases I mentioned above, each one of them came about due to Congress relinquishing too much of its power to the executive to do those things

When I referred to treaties and purchases, I’m talking about SALT, START, the Louisiana Purchase, Seward’s Folly, etc. In the case of the major arms treaties, neither us nor the Soviets would have been at the table if our own electorate knew the entire negotiation processes. Those things do need to happen in confidence because otherwise nobody would be able to offer concessions to the other side.

Like I said...I’ll cop to being guilty of idealism.

But on the surface, transparency = bad just doesn’t sit right and also condones some bad behavior.

[CAA Flagship]

when you say 'leakers', are you also referring to whistleblowers?

No.

[CAA Flagship]

Referring to those, who's job it is to keep information, but don't keep said information to themselves.

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

kalm, we don't only deal with democratic countries. We deal with a lot of authoritarian governments that are not out in the open with their citizens. Are you saying we should only deal with democratic governments?

[kalm]

Of course you’d all place supreme trust in Hillary or Obama or Biden negotiating on your behalf...on account of other foreign leaders need to have confidentiality and trust (like Flaggy said)!

How about all negotiations are out in the open for each country’s people to see?

Want back door deals? That’s a you problem. Sorry...we don’t play.

kalm, we don't only deal with democratic countries. We deal with a lot of authoritarian governments that are not out in the open with their citizens. Are you saying we should only deal with democratic governments?

That’s the rub. We can chose not tondeal with authoritarian regimes, but our competitors still will.

[GannonFan]

I said the most beneficial treaties and purchases

Our support of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan or for anti- Communist militias in Central America or for the Iran deal aren’t what I’m talking about here, but you’re living in a pipe dream if you think anyone is ever going to compel transparency in foreign policy... in all the cases I mentioned above, each one of them came about due to Congress relinquishing too much of its power to the executive to do those things

When I referred to treaties and purchases, I’m talking about SALT, START, the Louisiana Purchase, Seward’s Folly, etc. In the case of the major arms treaties, neither us nor the Soviets would have been at the table if our own electorate knew the entire negotiation processes. Those things do need to happen in confidence because otherwise nobody would be able to offer concessions to the other side.

Like I said...I’ll cop to being guilty of idealism.

But on the surface, transparency = bad just doesn’t sit right and also condones some bad behavior.

Even I'm not that ideal. Complete transparency is, as CID said, a pipe-dream and just not workable. We live in a society now where any utterance, no matter the context, can be a public-opinion turning meme in the speed it takes someone to find a Jean-Luc-Picard photo. That's no way to conduct business if the people at the negotiating table are afraid to open their mouths. And it's no way to negotiate if you can't have a back and forth with some frank commentary. Of course, transparency is needed and should be the default mode in most cases, but to demand it totally and always is a recipe for nothing meaningful to get done.

[SeattleGriz]

For such a stupid shit, he sure seems to be getting stuff done. What does that say about all of Washington?

I'm not talking about all of Washington.....I am talking about Donald Trump.

Yeah, and Trump is running circles around them.

[css75]

I'm not talking about all of Washington.....I am talking about Donald Trump.

Yeah, and Trump is running circles around them.

Yep and Pelosi can’t get enough votes. Another win for Trump and another loss for the haters.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk