Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader

from the all-very-above-board-and-not-worrying-at-all dept

At the very last minute of last week — prime government news-dumping time — Rep. Adam Schiff announced the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was (perhaps unlawfully) refusing to turn over a whistleblower report to House Intelligence Community.

That the ODNI would blow off its oversight isn’t unusual. The Intelligence Community has long treated its obligations as mere suggestions, leaving it to whistleblowers and leakers to expose wrongdoing. What was a bit more unusual were the allegations being buried: what was forwarded to the ODNI by the IC Inspector General suggested the Trump Administration itself was involved.

The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House, are engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the President and conceal from the Committee information related to his possible “serious or flagrant” misconduct, abuse of power, or violation of law.    

Whatever is contained in the unseen report, the ODNI definitely does not want to talk about. Not even behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee. The New York Times reports the head of the ODNI has blown off Rep. Schiff’s demands.

The acting director of national intelligence will not testify before Congress this week or immediately hand over a whistle-blower complaint to lawmakers, escalating a standoff between Capitol Hill and leaders of the intelligence agencies.

What little information has surfaced is still pretty much detail-free, but the ODNI’s general counsel sent a letter to Schiff that adds a bit more to the theory these still-buried allegations involve top-level White House officials.

The complaint involves conduct by someone “outside the intelligence community” and does not involve intelligence activity under the supervision of Mr. Maguire, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, wrote in a letter on Tuesday to Mr. Schiff that was obtained by The New York Times.

It is definitely someone outside of the intelligence community. The Washington Post blows the lid off the report the ODNI doesn’t want to hand over to Congress. It indeed goes all the way to the top.

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

One of the officials said the communication was a phone call. Given the time frame, it appears to be one of several phone calls to world leaders Trump made in the preceding weeks, including a July 31 call to Vladimir Putin and communications with Kim Jong Un during the summer. Given the troubling things Trump has said publicly about these two, it doesn’t stretch the imagination much to assume he’s said some legitimately worrying things to them behind the scenes.

This would fit into the DNI’s claims the whistleblower report can’t be handed to the House Oversight Committee because it contains “confidential and potentially privileged communications.” However, it does appear Rep. Schiff and the Committee will at least finally be hearing something about the buried report. The Washington Post report says acting ODNI Joseph Maguire — along with IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson — will be testifying at a closed Congressional hearing about the whistleblower complaint, contrary to the earlier New York Times reporting.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the public will hear much about the details. Whatever Trump said to whatever foreign leader will remain under wraps, even if the alleged “promise” has the potential to affect all of us.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
106 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Well that's reassuring

Given what he says in public on a regular basis, for something to be so concerning that you’d have a whistleblower (foolishly) running to ODNI, who in turn considered it a valid and pressing issue, what he said in that phone call has got to be seriously damning.

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Can you honestly call it a ‘showdown’ if both sides know that only one of them has the guts to pull the metaphorical trigger? I mean at this point were I working in US intel I wouldn’t worry one bit about congress, as the most they’ll do is wag their fingers and make angry but ultimately empty threats unless they get their way. Sure one of the intel agencies might have to send someone to get whined at for a few hours, but that’s the extent of what congress will do to a government agency/group that stands up to them, so why worry about them?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Well that's reassuring

That’s what Trump does, though. Take the sharpie controversy. Anyone else would go "yeah, I had some old info about which states Dorian was headed to, sorry about any confusion". It would be a minor meaningless blip that would be unnoticed in day to day business.

Instead, we have a multi-week temper tantrum involving attempts to further mislead the public after mistakes were recognised, science agencies being told to lie to the public if it’s politically convenient and then being told to retroactively fake evidence to support the fake narrative.

Trump doesn’t just dig in, he destroys the building’s foundations if it stops his feelings from getting hurt. But, yeah, Obama knew some people too so it’s totally them same things…

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Well that's reassuring

"Yeah, Obama really did suck."

Obama practised realpolitik which indeed does suck, but at least he had the good grace not to go on national television lauding the merits of known mass murderers.

Trump, otoh, goes to north korea and publicly makes best buddies with a guy who gets a lot of his jollies out of keeping a significant proportion of his population in torture farms and still sponsors the narrative that americans capture and eat korean citizens alive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Well that's reassuring

Trump, otoh, goes to north korea and publicly makes best buddies with a guy who gets a lot of his jollies out of keeping a significant proportion of his population in torture farms and still sponsors the narrative that americans capture and eat korean citizens alive.

Trump’s North Korea strategy seems to be crushing on Kim like a giddy anime schoolgirl… while also doing all he can to piss off the one country that has been keeping North Korea under control. Not to say China isn’t a massive sack of shit in a lot of places, but Trump trying to engage China in an erection-comparing contest has to be one of the dumber things he’s tried to pull off.

Then again, it’s clear Kim has Donny wrapped around his finger, considering that he quickly revived the exact same nuke testing facility he claimed to destroy for Donnykins…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Well that's reassuring

At this point, I see no reason to limit the possible countries to Russia and North Korea. I’d add Afghanistan, KSA and Israel to the list, based on events during that period and beyond.

All three countries have taken actions that make more sense with hidden promises from Trump in the intervening weeks.

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that's reassuring

If you investigate the timing it is likely Ukraine.

This started in late July / early August with the G7 meeting where he asked for them to ignore the invasion of Crimea and include Russia again, followed by cutting off military aid to Ukraine. Pure speculation that any discussions with the newly elected President of Ukraine would probably include an offer to restore the aid if he did something for Trump (or even the US; I think either is likely).

Or not. I’d ask for popcorn, sit back and watch, but I’ve got this bad feeling in my stomach about this administration…

Mornington Crescent with a little Nuffielding says:

OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!

NOT ACTIONS, mere words.

Like the utterly baseless Trump-Russia allegations, AND the utterly baseless Kavanaugh allegations — with rehash already debunked — this is so far NOTHING. Not even "nothing but", just NOTHING.

Come back when you have more than rumor of how someone took Trump’s remarks.

Next STORY, please.


UK readers might see that "Mornington Crescent" is APT name for this mysterious NOTHING.

Mornington Crescent with a little Nuffielding says:

Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!

Oh, by the way, obvious to me: that this is from the Deep State suggests that it’s TOTAL FAKE. The "intelligence community" clearly hates Trump.

My bet is they’ve concocted yet another "allegation" and this time are playing up the drama before hand, simply blaming the delay of releasing NOTHING as way to smear Trump.

Regardless of all else, Trump has at least kept the US from attacking Iran over NOTHING and setting of MAJOR conflagrations worldwide.

Count your blessing, kids, civilizatin can always go to hell overnight.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: OH MY TROLL

Blue Balls – if that is really your name – you seem to be under the impression that posting two or three time sin a row will get you REALLY important message across.

You are in violation of Cabbage Law and common decency. You have no right to post without downvotes.

Unless you want to post at your super-cool site with no moderation and real freepeachs. Still waiting for the link to that, BTW.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: OH MY TROLL

Oh common, the IC IG just classified it as credible and urgent because he’s incompetent and biased against trump and never should be in that role.. Trump works in mysterious ways and we may never know the grand plan that required trump to appoint this particular biased incompetent individual to that role, but he obviously needs to be replaced by a d-list celebrity asap.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged words!

Like the utterly baseless Trump-Russia allegations, AND the utterly baseless Kavanaugh allegations — with rehash already debunked — this is so far NOTHING. Not even "nothing but", just NOTHING.

I’m withholding my "it’s nothing" judgement until everything’s been investigated 7 times, like Benghazi.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged wor

Exactly.

Numerous Benghazi investigation return no arrests or convictions, or indictable evidence of any actual wrongdoing = "Lock her up!"

A single Mueller investigation returns 34 indictments, numerous convictions, makes an overall profit, and which Mueller himself is very careful to state this it does not exonerate anybody, only that there’s not enough concrete evidence to indict under existing definitions of collusion = "they found nothing, leave him alone!"

It must be weird being so detached from reality…

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged

They exist in a deep state of denial in which the depths yet to be plumbed have no bottom. Trump could invite Taleban leaders to Camp David near the eve of the 9/11 anniversary and his zealot supporters would say he’s doing it for peace, so that’s okay.

Wait… at least one of them said that to me.

Per Rick Wilson, there is no bottom. Yuck!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes alleged

None of the indictments were for anything related to the original investigation.

Or did you miss that part?

I mean, tax evasion, money laundering, lying under oath, all serious crimes, yes…

But NONE of them were related to the ORIGINAL reason the investigation happened for.

And despite this, DESPITE this… Not ONE piece of evidence came out that linked Trump to Russia in regards to meddling with the election.

Not ONE vote was changed. Not ONE American worked with Russia willingly. And Russia spent less than 1% of the money Hillary did on Facebook ads.

You guys talk about being detached from reality, you must be looking in the mirror every time you think about this, because you’ve all lost the plot.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 OH MY GOD! Some unknown person characterizes all

"None of the indictments were for anything related to the original investigation."

Oh dear, you really do need to read up on the factual information rather than the fictionalised Cliffs Notes you subscribe to…

There were 34 indictments. Of these, 26 were Russian nationals, and have largely been outside of US jurisdiction, so the investigation was ongoing. Of the US nationals involved, both Rick Gates and Paul Manafort pleased guilty to conspiracy related to the original charges.

You are either misinformed or lying.

"Not ONE piece of evidence came out that linked Trump to Russia in regards to meddling with the election"

Again, a lie. There is plenty of proof, just not enough for a smoking gun under the legal definition of "collusion" as understood by Mueller.

"Not ONE vote was changed"

You’re not that naive. You just hope beyond hope that even though the only reason Trump won was because the electoral college rejected millions of popular votes for Hillary that at least the mere thousands that swung the election were genuine.

"You guys talk about being detached from reality"

Yes, because folks like you have invented a parallel universe that’s not supported by documented evidence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Is this really news?

The president had a conversation with world leaders.(Not shocking)

Someone overheard part of that conversation.(Still not shocking – it’s Trump FFS)

That someone then filed a report with ODNI accusing Trump of.. something. (Noone knows what…)

Tim doesn’t like this.

News at 11…

Why should I care? There’s a formula to writing a decent news or opinion piece…. Timmyboy, you’re falling flat with my interest.

Where’s the hook?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Why should I care?

The President of the United States is accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting through official whistleblower channels. That someone would feel the need to do so should make you care about what the president did to warrant that report. Whether it is “nothing” shouldn’t matter until after the substance of the complaint is revealed.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The President of the United States is accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting through official whistleblower channels.

More than that, it wasn’t just considered worth reporting but was considered a valid concern by the agency it was reported to, and was treated as sensitive enough that they are only willing to discuss it in a close-door meeting.

How it’s been treated is evidence enough that whatever it is is of notable concern.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: zero credibility

"accused, apparently credibly, of doing something worth reporting"

… accused of what, specifically ??

You have no facts whatsoever to judge the "credibility" of this anonymous allegation against Trump (neither does the news media).
Therefore, you and the media have no credibility in validating anything about this issue.

Anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations of serious (unidentified) misbehavior sounds a lot like a political smear. Trump has been bombarded with such empty smears for years by his political opponents.

Trump, as President, can speak to anyone in the world as he pleases. A President also has final Federal authority to judge what is classified or unclassified.

A President also directly commands all Federal intelligence agencies and personnel; Congress has a dramatically smaller oversight role.
Those subordinate intelligence agencies (and ODNI) have no authority to monitor or judge a President’s actions.
Serious, honest ‘whistleblowing’ requires facts — and such whistleblowers are free to go directly to Congress/media with those facts … not thru vague anonymous back-channels with vague anonymous accusations.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: zero credibility

Serious, honest ‘whistleblowing’ requires facts … not thru vague anonymous back-channels

You’re talking about the anonymously given info about the original complaint, right? Because the original complaint was a formal complaint given to the inspector general for the intelligence community.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

… accused of what, specifically ??

That’s what we’d all like to know and what people are trying to find out.

You have no facts whatsoever to judge the "credibility" of this anonymous allegation against Trump (neither does the news media).

The allegation is not necessarily anonymous. It was filed through the OFFICIAL whistleblower channels set up by Congress. It’s likely somebody in the chain knows who filed it and was able to find it credible enough to not just dump it in the trash.

Therefore, you and the media have no credibility in validating anything about this issue.

Not true. It’s been validated by official government channels. We just don’t know what it’s about.

Anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations of serious (unidentified) misbehavior sounds a lot like a political smear. Trump has been bombarded with such empty smears for years by his political opponents.

Along with every single other politician in the entire history of the world. Your point?

Trump, as President, can speak to anyone in the world as he pleases.

No he can’t, actually.

A President also has final Federal authority to judge what is classified or unclassified.

Also not true. Generally, yes, but he can be overridden by Congress or the agencies they grant such power to. I guarantee you that he doesn’t sit in his office with a stamp and stamp every single piece of government documentation as either classified or unclassified.

A President also directly commands all Federal intelligence agencies and personnel; Congress has a dramatically smaller oversight role.

And they can still override the president if they suspect misconduct. The president is not above the law.

Those subordinate intelligence agencies (and ODNI) have no authority to monitor or judge a President’s actions.

Yes, they do. Their mandate is to protect America, if the president is doing things that threaten America, it is their job to report it, despite directly reporting to the president. The president is not above the law.

Serious, honest ‘whistleblowing’ requires facts — and such whistleblowers are free to go directly to Congress/media with those facts

As they did in this instance, since they filed an official report with the official whistleblowers’ channels in the government.

not thru vague anonymous back-channels with vague anonymous accusations.

None of which happened here. There’s actually official reports and documentation filed. Do try reading the article first.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Also not true. Generally, yes, but he can be overridden by Congress or the agencies they grant such power to. I guarantee you that he doesn’t sit in his office with a stamp and stamp every single piece of government documentation as either classified or unclassified.

Congress has no power over the power of classification. That is entirely an executive branch power, a program created by executive order under the power of the executive to protect national security. The executive grants the power to classify material to agencies, not Congress. The power is limited by the Judiciary, not congress.

More telling is the assumption that it was declassification that was the misconduct, rather than say a promise to utilize surveillance powers to investigate US citizens of interest to a foreign government in violation of the law. The AC is already narrowing the window on what The accusation is.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: zero credibility

The man in the IC who did see it and whose job it is to review the complaint to determine things like credibility and urgency of whistleblower complaints officially determined that the complaint was both “credible” and “urgent”. As such, unless you have specific evidence that it is not credible, the rest of us are going to proceed under the assumption that the complaint is, in fact, apparently credible until we receive credible information that proves otherwise.

And by the way, there’s a difference between something is apparently credible and saying that it is, in fact, credible. Essentially, neither side of the conflict between Congress and the DNI disputes the credibility of the complaint as asserted by an official who saw the complaint. So, from what we do know, the complaint is apparently credible. We don’t know if it’s credible, but the people who do know say that it is.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 zero credibility

Ah what the hell, I suppose I’ve got a few minutes to waste on someone playing dumb and/or who refused to actually read the articles…

“A month ago, a whistleblower within the intelligence community lawfully filed a complaint regarding a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law, or deficiency within the responsibility or authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community found that complaint not only credible, but urgent. More than ten days since the Director was obligated to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees, the Committee has still not received the disclosure from the Director, in violation of the law.

On September 9, 2019, the IC IG transmitted a letter to the Committee notifying it of the existence of a whistleblower complaint. The following day, on September 10, 2019, Chairman Schiff requested the full and unredacted whistleblower complaint, the IC IG determination related to the complaint, and all records pertaining to the ODNI’s involvement in this matter, including any and all correspondence with other Executive Branch actors including the White House.

On September 13, 2019, the Committee received a letter from the ODNI declining the Chairman’s request and stating that the DNI, contrary to an unambiguous statutory command, is withholding the complaint from the Committee because, in part, it involves confidentially and potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community.

The Washington Post report says acting ODNI Joseph Maguire — along with IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson — will be testifying at a closed Congressional hearing about the whistleblower complaint, contrary to the earlier New York Times reporting.

The tl;dr version if reading all that terribly dry text is too much hassle would be that if the complaint didn’t exist, wasn’t real, and didn’t contain sensitive information then the back and forth would have been very different between the two groups. Had the complaint been found groundless simply saying that would have been enough to end the thing, that ODNI instead stonewalled their (theoretical) oversight and refused to hand it over contrary to what the law apparently says, making pretty clear they do not want what’s in that complaint to be known.

I look forward to yet another attempt to claim that none of that’s real/counts for whatever reason you can pull from your backside.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 zero credibility

It’s the "Mueller’s report exonerated Trump" argument all over again with these chucklenuts. The same report which they shat in their pants over and had to be brought into the light kicking and screaming. And yet somehow, despite all the huff and puff about how the report proved their party’s innocence they still can’t explain why after two years of supposed skulduggery on the side of their enemies, Manafort is in jail instead of Clinton and Trump can’t build the fucking wall without impoverishing his own armed forces.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 zero credibility

"And yet somehow, despite all the huff and puff about how the report proved their party’s innocence…"

It didn’t, actually. The Mueller report was shock full of what mueller himself wrote down as "serious concerns".

The "summary" of the report was presented by one of Trump’s own people who somehow failed to present any of the dozens of concerns mentioned and instead presented the view that the report "exonerated this administration". Which was the complete opposite of what the report actually did.

But yes, the chucklenuts supporting trump are more or less the same as the ones who blindly believed it when GWB did his "Mission accomplished" stunt. Trump could actually rape and kill someone in public and most of them would just react with "But what about Clinton" in blind denial of factual reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There’s a good chance it amounts to abuse of his office for personal gain.

THIS!!! I would be surprised if the Donald didn’t do everything he could while in office to enrich his personal business affairs by using his leverage as POTUS.

To me, it’s as if that is the only reason he wanted to become president, because he saw his buddy Putin doing the kind of things that only a russian dictator would do in order to get… er… steal.. more money and was jealous that he couldn’t do the same.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I wonder if he’s swapping Maine for Greenland.

More likely he tried to sell Puerto Rico in exchange for getting yet another lawsuit tossed out of the Russian courts.

"I really hate those foreigners in Puerto Rico. Lets say you can have them all, and I can build Trump Tower Moscow. Deal?"

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/trump-foreign-business-interests/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Whistle Blower

This is a good take on the situation as it currently stands.

Make no mistake about it: just because I find the Trump administration to be entirely corrupt and incompetent does not mean I trust a single word spoken by the top Democrats, either.

But the only thing Schiff could be possibly blowing out of proportion for party politics is whether the ODNI is wrong to keep the complaint sealed. Every other allegation was reported by someone else.

Anonymous Coward says:

This would fit into the DNI’s claims the whistleblower report can’t be handed to the House Oversight Committee because it contains "confidential and potentially privileged communications."

I’m kind of curious… does the US intelligence apparatus spend much time working with "non-confidential" and "non-privileged" information?

Because from where I’m standing, the raison d’être of intelligence agencies is to intercept and interpret "privileged" and "confidential" information. Or are we expected to believe that foreign governments, terrorist groups, et al. primarily make plans detrimental to the safety and prosperity of the United States in open chatrooms?

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If they were to ignore the the stuff published in various newspapers or magazines, then they would be seriously derelict in their duties.

Do you really think that everything bad that happens in the world exists in a privileged and/or confidential fashion, or shall we say vacuum? Or might there be some edge considerations that may or may not be dealt with in a privileged or confidential fashion? Then comes the question, who makes that decision, or better yet, how does one control that so no one else finds out, especially when it’s already out there?

While I think that various government individuals make the decision that things should be confidential far to often, and for far too long, and often for all the wrong reasons (butt hurt and other forms of embarrassment as examples) there are still some thing that should be held close, for some reasonable amount of time. Part of that question is how long, and sometimes the answer is days, and sometimes the answer is weeks, and sometimes the answer is years, and sometimes the answer is decades. It should never be longer than that, and should often be shorter than what the original classifiers suggests.

In the mean time, the question is how to deal with things that they wish to be privileged or confidential that get out anyway, for whatever reason. Then there is the question of whether the determination for information to be privileged or confidential is the correct determination? Then there is the question of whether that determination is or is not in the interest of the public. The determination is more often than not that it isn’t, and for whatever excuse, that is the way they often determine.

What if it isn’t, regardless of excuse? When does the determination of privilege or confidentiality become criminal? Then, given the way secrecy is dealt with these days, how do we know when we do actually need to know? And, what do we do then?

Zof (profile) says:

Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....

I’m just going to assume all these stories are fake and ignore them. Techdirt can’t keep ignoring Google dirt that has actual evidence, and a papertrail, and ignore them getting called to the mat on CSPAN and me care about anything else political they report on. You are sad shills until that time. Until we see you go after Google when there’s evidence the way you go after bullshit fantasies when there isn’t, nobody can trust this category of reporting from Techdirt. And I’m sorry. You did this to yourselves by continuously giving Google a free pass.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: When you run TD THEN you get to dictate what they cover

Bottom of the page, ‘Submit a Story’, though based upon recent examples showing how dastardly Google is have been epic faceplants you’ll excuse me if I don’t expect whatever you’re obsessing about to be any more credible.

If, on the other hand, you consider whatever it is to be so very important then by all means, write up an article or two covering it, host it on your own gorram site, and stop whining that TD isn’t as fixated on the company as you apparently are.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN....

They’ve attacked Google before, even if not for the things you may want them to.

They are under no obligation to report on the things you want reported on.

CSPAN reports on literally everything going on in Congressional chambers that isn’t behind closed doors. Unless some other source is also reporting on that, why would you expect Techdirt to?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Until This Website Covers Google Getting Owned on CSPAN.

BTW, do remember the last time you demanded Techdirt cover a story you thought was damning for Google? You know, the papers from Project Veritas?

Here are two lessons you should have learned from that time:

  1. Techdirt often waits several days before reporting on something in order to let the story fully develop and not give a knee-jerk reaction. You seriously need to learn some patience. Would it kill you to wait a week until after both the story was completed and you submitted the story to Techdirt? Give them time. They may cover it. They may not. It’s too soon to say anything definitive at this point.
  2. If and when Techdirt does decide to cover that story, it’s far from a guarantee that the result will be what you like. On the contrary, past experience suggests that this is not a smoking gun for Google but just ignorant people trying to blame Google for all of society’s ills, confusing who does what and how technology and the internet works. Be careful what you wish for.
Al Edgedly says:

Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!

Overview of what is known on Friday — totally stomps on Masnick’s hopes:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-whistleblower-drama-puts-biden-hot-seat-over-ukraine

Here’s the corrupt politician at center of the actual investigation:

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. -The Hill

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

The president has the right to tell another country’s leader to investigate corruption, particularly if it "bleeds over" into the United States, Mr. Giuliani said on Thursday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whistle-blower-s-complaint-is-said-to-involve-multiple-acts-by-trump/ar-AAHxDU9?li=AA30Nm

Before got round to this, new headline on ZeroHedge:

A Smug Trump Derides MSM Over Biden-Ukraine Whistleblower Story: ‘You’re Gonna Look Really Bad When It Falls’

Trump is LAUGHING, kids! — SO, HA, HA! Another one Techdirt jumped into wrongly but eagerly, and day later I already have the LAST LAUGH!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hey, kids! You TRUMP-eted this, but it's about BIDEN!

If Trump is so concerned about CORRUPTION interfering with US operations, why does he still refuse to acknowledge Russia’s PROVEN interference in our elections? I’d love it if Trump got serious about corruption, but it seems, in this case, he’s only concerned about the "corruption" of a potential political opponent. Rather self-serving right?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...