and to elaborate, I'm a YUGE WaPo fan. I believe that Democracy Dies in Darkness. Plus I consider WaPo to be a Credible Source™
as luck would have it . . . plus you seemed interested in the topic of whistleblowers. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-wa...-whistleblowers-11574460862?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 How Washington Normally Treats Whistleblowers Plus, the Bidens can still help Burisma. By James Freeman Nov. 22, 2019 5:14 pm ET The popularity of impeachment may have peaked, but give House Democrats credit. They persuaded nearly half the country that the President should be removed from office for asking Ukraine to examine a deal which any reasonable person would agree deserves examination. The Biden family still hasn’t explained what exactly Hunter Biden did to earn all the money he received from the Ukrainian gas company investigated by a prosecutor fired at the insistence of his father. Joe Biden has publicly affirmed that as Vice President he insisted on a quid pro quo in which U.S. aid would not be released until the prosecutor was sacked. In Time magazine this week, Simon Shuster reports from Kyiv that even though Hunter Biden has left the board of the gas company Burisma, the company is still benefiting from the association: Back in the U.S. House, the impeachment inquiry hasn’t established any violation of law. The Democratic case holds that Mr. Trump should be removed from office because his request that Ukraine look into the suspicious Hunter Biden deal was likely to result in a political benefit for Mr. Trump. But the leader of the inquiry, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) is still claiming that by law the public cannot learn the identity—and perhaps the political motivation—of the “whistleblower” who triggered the inquiry. This week even the “Fact Checker” column at the Washington Post acknowledges that Mr. Schiff’s claim that the Trump accuser has a “statutory right” to remain anonymous is bogus. Across the federal government, laws and regulations protect whistleblowers against reprisals and generally require federal agencies to maintain confidentiality unless disclosure is necessary to fulfill an agency’s mission. For example, the 2018 transcript of a Justice Department video on “Whistleblower Rights and Protections” notes: Mr. Schiff asks us to believe that civil cases sometimes reveal a whistleblower’s identity but the potential removal of the duly-elected President of the United States isn’t important enough to require such disclosure. Even when disclosure isn’t required by a court order, the federal government doesn’t always protect identities with the same zeal with which Mr. Schiff is protecting the Trump accuser. A whistleblower who assisted in the successful prosecution of a federal contractor tells this column via email: Speaking of consequences, there are few things in government more consequential than the removal of a President. Prosecuted for his alleged political motivations in the conduct of foreign policy, Mr. Trump deserves the right to explore the potential political motivations of his accuser. ***
It seems the Intelligence Community (IC) has been the source of both investigations into Trump (Russian Collusion & Bribery). If you'll recall, the IC was also deeply involved in the Watergate scandal. Nixon didn't order it. He covered it up. But it's been a theory that Nixon was set up by the IC. I'm looking forward to Durham's report to either expose or put it to rest.
It's the IG Report I'm looking forward to. I misspoke. I don't think Durham is issuing a report. The point is the IC isn't supposed to meddle in politics.
This post is pretty meaningless. There is no IC. There are numerous independent agencies that frequently have problems sharing information. Before 9/11 it was communication was even worse. The idea that they conspired successfully to have secret actions carried out against these politicians with no real evidence is laughable.
Knock yourself out... DOJ watchdog report expected to say FBI's Russia probe launched properly but lower-level employees made mistakes https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/doj-ig-report-fbi-russia-investigation/index.html
What are you talking about? There is no intelligence community? You've never heard them referenced as IC? Vindman's lawyer even said they were instructed to not speak about anyone in the intelligence community. It's the "numerous independent agencies" that make up the IC. This is a known thing. I can't take you seriously. Are you that naive that you'd deny there has never been any meddling by any intelligence agency in our political affairs?
Actually, I respect that you're asking for evidence. I won't invest any time in that. I recall a previous post of mine where I asked for compelling evidence of 'High Crimes" because at this point, I'm not convinced you remove a president with the evidence that's been presented.
To act like the IC acts as one unit is ignoring reality. It is why it all the more conclusive when they all agree like they do that Russia attempted to hack our election and Ukraine never did any such thing. It is why acting like all of the various intel agencies that had difficulty communicating has carried out multiple conspiracies going back to the investigation into Nixon and now against Trump. If you buy that, then I have no problems with you not taking anything I say seriously.
There have been leaks for a long time of Trumps own polling showing he does the worst against Biden. He also has seen the public polling... further he has gone after Biden quite a bit. Timing is a big part of this investigation and the piece cited was insincere. Trump didn’t have a time machine to know how Biden would be doing right now when all of this happened. Further the polling against Biden still isn’t all that great for Trump. The article is purposely obtuse... just like those parroting the “Trump said he didn’t want quid pro quo”... and failing to acknowledge he said it AFTER word of an investigation was known.
