Yeah. I’m sure there’s nothing even remotely political about it.kalm wrote:Snitching implies whistleblowing on something illegal.SeattleGriz wrote:
When they damage the reputation of our intelligence services and make it so other World leaders cannot have frank discussions, then yes it does.
This whistleblower is affecting our government and it's ability to get work done.
The complaint itself names people who were privy to what the complainant alleges. Those people need to be questioned by Congress. I'm surprised they are not already under subpoena, actually. I am pretty sure that someone will argue that the complaint should be considered on its own merits, but the IC changed the rule on hearsay vs. firsthand knowledge in August, so we are in uncharted territory. I think that given the rule change, it is appropriate to question people with firsthand knowledge of the events in the complaint.JohnStOnge wrote:All other things aside, the person who made the complaint is not a leaker. The person went through the legal process provided for making the Congress of the United States aware of their concern. Had the person gone to the Washington Post that would be leaking. Going through the legal process for expressing concern to Congress based on what the person was being told by White House officials is not leaking.CitadelGrad wrote: Two of the people who the leaker identified as being present for the call were not even there and had no knowledge of the details of the call.
Doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal it should be investigated, right?AZGrizFan wrote:Yeah. I’m sure there’s nothing even remotely political about it.kalm wrote:
Snitching implies whistleblowing on something illegal.
Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.kalm wrote:Doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal it should be investigated, right?AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah. I’m sure there’s nothing even remotely political about it.
Deal!AZGrizFan wrote:Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.kalm wrote:
Doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal it should be investigated, right?
Yeah, we know how that goes.kalm wrote:Deal!AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.
If only Clinton had been scrutinized a little.
People literally ON the donk payroll doing the “investigating”....How do you get stupid enough to even have that conversation when you know the Sneaky Pete's are listening to every word and that they change governments for a living? And ffs how in the world do you ask Rudy G to cover it up? Its like he wants to get caughtSeattleGriz wrote:They do when it involves those who work in the information that are violating their duties.kalm wrote:
Do innocent men use the term "snitch".
Trump has confirmed some things.CitadelGrad wrote:I'm not sure what has been proven accurate. Two of the people who the leaker identified as being present for the call were not even there and had no knowledge of the details of the call.JohnStOnge wrote:
The problem for those of you that want to go down that road is that the complaint is totally consistent with the memo with notes on the conversation. So you can say it was "hearsay" but the "hearsay" is seen to be accurate. The complaint's claim that the memo was unusually placed into a higher security storage system has also been shown to be true. It's kind of hard to attack the "hearsay" thing when stuff keeps coming out to validate the complaint.
What the intelligence community might do, BTW, is let those of us that are blind to it at this point know that we have a complete nut job atrocity who is doing all sorts of unacceptable things as President right now. Or at least they can try.
When you use a term like snitch ( or rat) you are suggesting that the information is true.BDKJMU wrote:I heard an innocent man threaten a leaking snitch..houndawg wrote:
When was the last time an innocent man threatened a whistle blower with death?
houndawg wrote:How do you get stupid enough to even have that conversation when you know the Sneaky Pete's are listening to every word and that they change governments for a living? And ffs how in the world do you ask Rudy G to cover it up? Its like he wants to get caughtSeattleGriz wrote:
They do when it involves those who work in the information that are violating their duties.
His entire presidency has been a clown show from the jump...houndawg wrote:How do you get stupid enough to even have that conversation when you know the Sneaky Pete's are listening to every word and that they change governments for a living? And ffs how in the world do you ask Rudy G to cover it up? Its like he wants to get caughtSeattleGriz wrote:
They do when it involves those who work in the information that are violating their duties.
Really..?AZGrizFan wrote:Yeah, we know how that goes.kalm wrote:
Deal!
If only Clinton had been scrutinized a little.
Chizzang wrote:Really..?AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, we know how that goes.
can you explain to me again how 30,000 emails disappear ?
Because nobody on my companies IT team thinks that is even remotely possible
Example:
General Petraeus emails were scanned and collected in his drafts folder before they were sent
I think the issue is more that the emails cannot be acquired legally. Weren't the 30 k emails the ones Hillary was allowed to remove due to being about yoga and weddings?Chizzang wrote:Really..?AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, we know how that goes.
can you explain to me again how 30,000 emails disappear ?
Because nobody on my companies IT team thinks that is even remotely possible
Example:
General Petraeus emails were scanned and collected in his drafts folder before they were sent
Um... NoSeattleGriz wrote:I think the issue is more that the emails cannot be acquired legally. Weren't the 30 k emails the ones Hillary was allowed to remove due to being about yoga and weddings?Chizzang wrote:
Really..?
can you explain to me again how 30,000 emails disappear ?
Because nobody on my companies IT team thinks that is even remotely possible
Example:
General Petraeus emails were scanned and collected in his drafts folder before they were sent
Unless you are the whistleblower, then you don't know that for sure.AZGrizFan wrote:Yeah. I’m sure there’s nothing even remotely political about it.kalm wrote:
Snitching implies whistleblowing on something illegal.
Ibanez wrote:Unless you are the whistleblower, then you don't know that for sure.AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah. I’m sure there’s nothing even remotely political about it.
No, I cannot. If I could, I would be the one investigating.Chizzang wrote:Really..?AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah, we know how that goes.
can you explain to me again how 30,000 emails disappear ?
Because nobody on my companies IT team thinks that is even remotely possible
Example:
General Petraeus emails were scanned and collected in his drafts folder before they were sent
Uh, dealAZGrizFan wrote:Agreed. Add Clinton and Biden to the “investigation” list and I’m all for it.kalm wrote:
Doesn’t matter. If it’s illegal it should be investigated, right?
Well remember the Clinton Pizza Delivery Sex Ring (Pizzagate)AZGrizFan wrote:No, I cannot. If I could, I would be the one investigating.Chizzang wrote:
Really..?
can you explain to me again how 30,000 emails disappear ?
Because nobody on my companies IT team thinks that is even remotely possible
Example:
General Petraeus emails were scanned and collected in his drafts folder before they were sent
It's not naive. We don't have the facts. Aren't you one of the posters here deriding democrats for not using facts?AZGrizFan wrote:Ibanez wrote: Unless you are the whistleblower, then you don't know that for sure.
OK, Mr. Naive.
It must be a deep state conspiracy that Trumps DoJ hasn't found anything on Hillary since taking office.Chizzang wrote:Um... NoSeattleGriz wrote:
I think the issue is more that the emails cannot be acquired legally. Weren't the 30 k emails the ones Hillary was allowed to remove due to being about yoga and weddings?
I'm certain the State Department has had full authorization to investigate Hillary
since the day Trump took office
as well as the FBI starting in October of 2016
Not to mention, Trump at least half admitted what the whistleblower was claiming.Ibanez wrote:It's not naive. We don't have the facts. Aren't you one of the posters here deriding democrats for not using facts?AZGrizFan wrote:
OK, Mr. Naive.
You're making an assumption based off your own political leanings. Believe it or not, it is possible for a Republican to have ethics and call out something that's wrong, even if it's against a fellow Republican.
Trump also lies about everything so maybe he was lying.kalm wrote:Not to mention, Trump at least half admitted what the whistleblower was claiming.Ibanez wrote: It's not naive. We don't have the facts. Aren't you one of the posters here deriding democrats for not using facts?
You're making an assumption based off your own political leanings. Believe it or not, it is possible for a Republican to have ethics and call out something that's wrong, even if it's against a fellow Republican.
