Report: Devin Nunes' Aide Going Around Leaking Ukraine Call Whistleblower's Name

from the proper-channels dept

We've been highlighting lately how the situation with the whistleblower, who first tried to ring the alarm bells about President Trump's now confirmed quid pro quo call with Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent, showed why the "official channels" are useless for whistleblowers. Some suggested that we were premature in making that claim. However, since then, we've seen the President himself repeatedly try to attack the whistleblower while repeatedly demanding that the whistleblower be revealed. Now come reports that a staffer for Rep. Devin Nunes is going around revealing the name of the whistleblower:

A top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes has been providing conservative politicians and journalists with information—and misinformation—about the anonymous whistleblower who triggered the biggest crisis of Donald Trump’s presidency, two knowledgeable sources tell The Daily Beast.

Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower’s name ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the whistleblower’s name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it’s an attempt to out the anonymous official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.

Nunes, of course, has a bit of a history pushing mis- and dis-information in support of President Trump, so this seems par for the course. In the Daily Beast link above, one of the lawyers for the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, notes that revealing the name only serves to put the whistleblower in danger and seems to aim to "deter future whistleblowers from coming forward."

So, once again, it highlights exactly what we've been saying. Even in this case, where the whistleblower tried to use the "proper channels," everything is designed to go against the whistleblower, starting with the failure to turn over the complaint to Congress, as required by the law. The fact that a Nunes staffer is now apparently putting that whistleblower "at risk of harm" (according to Zaid) highlights just how ill-prepared our government is to deal with whistleblowers at a time when we need more, not fewer, whistleblowers.

Filed Under: cia, derek harvey, devin nunes, leaks, proper channels, ukraine, whistleblower


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:46am

    Test

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:49am

    Smear

    Looking at how Faux is trying to smear Vindman.
    The playbook is, "When the facts are against you - toss shit!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:56am

      Re: Smear

      They can't attack the message, so they're attacking the messenger and hoping nobody notices.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Slam the Sham 'peachers, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:09am

      Re: Smear

      Vindman is a Russian Immigrant! -- FACT.

      So taking orders direct from Putin! -- Conclusion.

      Therefore YOU are a "Russian agent"! -- By definition since aiding Putin.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re: Smear

        Irrelevant.

        I want to know the veracity of his claims.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re: Smear

        "taking orders direct from Putin"

        [asserts facts not in evidence]

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: Smear

          Everybody on the planet is in a secret cabal, each taking massively conflicting orders from Putin. It's how those inscrutable Russians operate. In fact, everyone is told to say the other is taking orders from him. RuSpyPsyOps 301.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Smear

            That's just what someone taking orders from Putin would say.

            (Sorry, comrade, I was ordered to say that).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: Lies

        Vindman is a Russian Immigrant! -- FACT.

        So are you saying that to be funny, or do you actually believe it? Good to see you spamming the board with your lies and hidden comments.

        Please explain, if corporations have to rights (as you have stated multiple times), how can they enforce the "right" of Copyright?

        Come on, I dare you to even try.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:44am

        Behold, the beginnings of idiocracy!

        Yupp, at the age of 3 he infiltrated the USA to put his dastardly plan in motion to infiltrate Trumps administration.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:48am

        Re: Re: Blueballs and the lies they tell

        When you are going to admit you lied about leaving forever bro?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        James Burkhardt (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:54am

        Re: Re: Smear

        So, The ukrainian immigrant who attempted to shut down the investigation that would in theory clear the Russian government of wrongdoing for which they are under sanction and in favor of the release of military aid to the ukraine to fight Russia....is actually a Russian immigrant working for Putin to undermine Russian intrests?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:21pm

        Re: Re: Smear

        Ukraine is not part of Russia. Once again you demonstrate an astounding ignorance of the facts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Smear

          Blue Balls still insists that Obama was born overseas and a deep state plot forged the paperwork.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 29 Oct 2019 @ 5:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: Smear

          Ukraine is not part of Russia.

          Yet. Wait until our stable genius is finished with them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 6:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Smear

            He does seem to like handing countries over to dictators that he likes...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              David, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smear

              It would appear that Vindham pointed out a few omissions in the transcript. Omissions that would explain why to the surprise of everybody the transcript was prepared and released so fast before someone on the call would feel compelled to divulge the most damning items about it.

              That would also explain the necessity to massively smear Vindham and to figure out the identity of the whistleblower in order to quiet everybody who could add some details to the transcript.

              It would appear that the White House would like the impeachment hearings to be just about what is in the transcript. That would likely suffice for impeachment but would not rattle the ranks of Republicans in the following Senate trial.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:34pm

        Re: Re: Smear

        Trump released the transcript which documents nicely what he did -- FACT.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:22am

          Reality distortion detected

          The White House released a "transcript" of Trump's recollection of what he said:

          The White House acknowledged that the five-page "unredacted" memo released Wednesday is not a verbatim record of the conversation between the two leaders July 25.

          That's a fact.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:29pm

            Re:

            And said transcript documents him asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political enemy, when there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, in direct violation of the emoluments clause.

            Fact.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:03am

    I love your blog. I’ve been reading it for years But I do believe you stand the risk of losing a portion of your audience that has a different political viewpoint from you.

    I find that when blog articles get close to things that are related to politics, that your articles lose some credibility when you position your article from the viewpoint of someone who is obviously aligned left.

    The only reason why I don’t unsubscribe is that you have gained huge respect and credibility in my eyes as I’ve read Techdirt on a daily basis over the years.

    I won’t go into what I feel is written from a political point of view rather than a Techdirt point of view in this article.

    But I would love if we could, much as possible, keep the politics or the implicit political view point out of the articles .

    I feel that what you do at Techdirt is unique and valuable. And that the politics lessens your credibility in the eyes of those that have a different political view from yourself.

    Now, it is your blog and you can write what you want. I just wanted to let you know that there are folks like me that love your Techdirt work even though we might disagree with you politically.

    We love your Techdirtyness even though we might not agree with your politics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Slam the Sham 'peachers, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:13am

      Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T have been READING!

      I love your blog. I’ve been reading it for years But I do believe you stand the risk of losing a portion of your audience that has a different political viewpoint from you.

      Masnick doesn't care. He doesn't need or want a large audience. He gets paid to put out propaganda and actively attempts to run off all dissent.

      Your claim then is have been blinded for years, probably because a pirate, and maybe believe that Masnick is for "free speech". But Masnick is a corporatist, wants content FREE for GOOGLE and others to use, and for corporations to control ALL the public's speech too with authorization supposedly in CDA Section 230.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Slam the Sham 'peachers, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T have been READING!

        And Techdirt is NOT a "public forum"! Just ask The Maz. That's just another illusion he presents.

        Actually it's a CLUB, and you ain't in it since don't agree with The Maz's left / neo-liberal / globalist goals. (It's not even politics, it's just power grab for his precious corporations.)

        Now, you kids have some dissent to rail at and censor, as you euphemize hide!

        Don't bother to thank me for furthering your attempt to get comments, Maz, you chiseling little click-baiter. You won't, cause that'd imply you have some slight gratitude, when all you corporate types think it's your god-given right to take what want.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:24am

          Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T have be

          Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T hav

            Hell of an assumption there, that he has feelings. Pretty sure trolls are emotionally dead inside.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Talmyr, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:20am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T

              Fairly sure they feel a boundless anger, measureless shame that feeds the anger, burning envy of normal sane people, greed for a slice of the 'have-lots' pie, lust for causing upset and consternation, too much slothfulness to research truth, and an over-weening pride in their righteousness, and gluttony for validating attention.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you C

                You know, I thought I saw what you were doing there, but I can't make "measureless shame that feeds the anger" fit.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:40am

          Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T have be

          And yet someone how you mananged to post here, and the community had not even flagged you (at the time of this writting).

          And yes, Techdirt is NOT a public forum. As far as I know it's provately owned, which means... it's not public.
          Incidently I'd disagreed with Masnick a time or two, and yet never been blocked (or community flaged). Maybe try not spamming and making coherent arguments without simply resorting to insulting people (which is basically the opposite of framing a good argument).

          I should figure out how to write foot notes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T hav

            "I should figure out how to write foot notes."

            Take socks off first. Makes it so much easier whether it be for typing or for holding a pen.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:45pm

        Re: Re: HA, HA! -- "AC", you CAN'T have been READING!

        [Asserts facts not in evidence]

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      michael, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:17am

      Re:

      So you think that whistleblowers should be outed by politicians instead of allowing the legally defined process to run its course?

      Because there's nothing else partisan in the article you're commenting about.

      If your skin is too thin to see any potential negative comments about your favorite political party, you should stick to Fox News or MSNBC instead of outlets where thinking people make thoughtful commentary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:22am

      Re:

      "aligned left"
      . Not sure what this means anymore. The Overton Window has been pushed to the right so much that Reagan would be a lefty lefto libtard today. Reality has a lefty bias and most everyone is tiring of the bullshit.
      Not sure how one might "remove" politics from current events.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:42am

        Re: Re:

        I don't think the trouble is that reality leans left, I think the trouble is the right has no actual representation at the moment. There are lots of legitimate right leaning views, but the republicans seem to have completely abandoned right leaning views. They don't seem to stand for anything anymore that is actually supported by reality and even in the conspiracy theories they have been spewing it's pretty hard to find anything that is actually right leaning.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Berenerd (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      So, let me get this straight, you have been "following for years" and you realize now that that there are political issues pointed out here? Have you not read anything posted over at least the last 8 years? Mike does not seem to have an opinion in which he feels one party is better than the other. He points to facts. Facts that can be verified. He did it against Obama and Trump. How commentators respond is not in Mike's control. He posts his blog post and we all debate it or in some cases make fun of the situation. You can't talk about whistle-blowing or the FCC with out it being political.
      Are you sure you really have not just stumbled on to this blog today, figured out how to post, then posted because you feel the discussion is against someone you support? We do see your test message as the first to respond with "Test"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re:

        Original Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:03am

        I agree. I am not a poster. I've been following for years, but really started paying attention during the whole RECAP/PACER/Aaron Schwartz tragedy. I found that Techdirt explained the whole situation better than anyone else.

        I also like Techdirt's take on encryption and backdoors.

        By the way, obviously, not all the AC comments in the comments are from me :-)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:57am

          Re: Not all AC comments...

          No, not all AC comments are you, but that icon next to your name reveals you to be the same person who posted the 'test' comment as the first post on this article.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            techflaws (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:36pm

            Re: Re: Not all AC comments...

            Excuse hin, he's not very bright (as he let on with his comments already).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            David, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:16am

            Re: Re: Not all AC comments...

            What I found interesting is that autogenerated icons seem to be per-article. That is, you can use them for tracing identity (based on Email) in a single article but not across them.

            Been some time since I checked, but if it's still the case, I find this a good compromise between not tracking anonymous contributions and providing information relevant for figuring out who is saying what within the discussion of one article.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pixelation, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:28am

      Re:

      It would help if you would be specific as to what is written in the article that is politically left.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        nunya, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re:

        The words he chose 'now confirmed quid pro quo call with Ukraine'.

        Confirmed by whom, for whom.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:54am

        Re: Re:

        Original Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:03am

        I agree, but I thought that might be like kicking a hornet's nest. I will say it's not the same feeling I get when attempting to read FiveThirtyEight or If I am forced to watch CNN at the gate while traveling, although Bose headphones are helpful in this situation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:17pm

      Re:

      I love your blog. I’ve been reading it for years But I do believe you stand the risk of losing a portion of your audience that has a different political viewpoint from you.

      That's interesting. Nothing in this post is particularly "political." We have long criticized any and all abuse of government power when it comes to whistleblowers. We loudly called out the Obama administration about its terrible treatment of whistleblowers. So why is it that when we do it now, suddenly it's "political." Perhaps the issue is not with us and our supposed "political viewpoint."

      I find that when blog articles get close to things that are related to politics, that your articles lose some credibility when you position your article from the viewpoint of someone who is obviously aligned left.

      I never understand this argument. Sometimes we get called "left" and sometimes we get called "right." As I've said many times before, I don't find either label useful for much of anything, other than what particular team's uniform you feel like rooting for. I don't root for either team and have criticized people who position themselves as "left" and those who position themselves "right."

      Again, what in the above was "political" in nature? And what in my post do you think that I would have written differently if it were the opposite party in power?

      But I would love if we could, much as possible, keep the politics or the implicit political view point out of the articles .

      There's no implicit political view point in this article that I can see. Just me calling out a flagrant attempt to scare off whistleblowers.

      I feel that what you do at Techdirt is unique and valuable. And that the politics lessens your credibility in the eyes of those that have a different political view from yourself.

      What politics is here? Again, I don't see any.

      We love your Techdirtyness even though we might not agree with your politics.

      If you think my politics are "left" then you have no idea what my politics are.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:25pm

        Re: Re:

        "Again, what in the above was "political" in nature?" .. "Trump's now confirmed quid pro quo call with Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent" .. The incorrect conclusion that this is to "dig up dirt" is completely false, and claiming that it's confirmed as a quid pro quo is also false.

        THAT'S what's political..

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Stating facts is not political. Just because the facts make your favored sports team look bad, doesn't change that they are facts, nor does it make my statements about those facts political.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            David, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh come on. Selecting the stated facts and giving them a spin/meaning certainly is political.

            I don't see that either big party does a particularly great job representing your political views, but that does not make this a blog without political intent.

            I mean, this is not a cat picture blog.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              i guess it is political to argue for proper oversight with authority, for valid and safe problem-reporting mechanisms, and for evidence-based law and policy. sure. anything to do with fair numbers of people living together is pretty much political by definition.

              Implied cherry-picking and spin are rather lacking in articles around here, whether i might agree with the ideas or not.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 6:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                What Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:55pm says. Mike leans libertarian, if anything, as implied by his frequent references to the free market.

                Right-wing authoritarians don't get the libertarian dislike of government interference in business and privacy, etc., and left-wingers don't get the libertarian desire to let market forces decide between winners and losers in business. Mike's insistence on protecting the public welfare is confusing to both because he's about public and personal freedom rather than attempting to corral or control the public. I share these viewpoints, for the most part, though sometimes we differ over how to best serve the public interest.

                The other AC is neither the first nor the last to whine about the imagined political leanings of this site, or to declare that he and/or others will stop reading this site until articles more favourable to their viewpoint are published. It's not Mike's job (or intention) to pander to anyone, but to state the facts as he sees them. The only explicit leaning this site has is in favour of the public interest and our personal rights, which can only be a good thing. It's what keeps me reading.

                Anyone who objects to writings in the public interest needs to get their heads read; we're all members of the public.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The incorrect conclusion that this is to "dig up dirt" is completely false"

          Considering the timing of Trump's requests, it certainly does seem like an attempt to have a Russian-adjacent country dig up dirt on one of the top frontrunners for the Democrat's 2020 nominee.

          "and claiming that it's confirmed as a quid pro quo is also false."

          The White House all but confirmed it with the transcript. At least one person with direct knowledge of the call told the relevant Congressional committees that it was a quid pro quo. Other than Trump himself saying it was a quid pro quo, what more evidence do you need?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            bob, 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Rudy Giuliani and Mike Mulvaney stating on TV that what happened was a quid pro quo.

            Oh wait, that have both said that.

            The only question at this point is if the house and senate will actually hold someone accountable.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              At this point, it looks like the House will.

              The Senate... hasn't definitively ruled it out? Quite?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ukraine, "We are ready to buy some Javelins" Quid
          Trump, "I need you to do me a favor" Pro Quo
          Confirmed by Taylor.

          I hope this was made simple enough for you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Also, articles of impeachment:

            "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

            Quid pro quo to use a foreign government to investigate political rivals before agreeing to aid sure sounds like bribery, if not outright treason, which is why these guys are fighting against that term so much. Fun bonus: one of the accepted definitions of "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes tax evasion - ever wonder why Trump is refusing so hard to release his tax returns?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Political?

          Trump stood up in front of a camera and explained that it was Ok to ask them to do this. His press secretary said, "He did it, get over it."
          The transcript shows him asking for an investigation while he was withholding aid.

          That is what "quid pro quo" means. That isn't a "conclusion" it's an observation of fact.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's funny you fucks even try to deny what the Cheeto's men already confirmed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 5:38pm

        Re: Re:

        Trying to pigeon-hole an outlet as right/left and then attacking from the other direction is one of the better ways to attack news outlets you don't like.

        Fox News complained about CNN being a leftist news outlet (when it wasn't) until they managed to erode their viewer base. Fox News then moved more toward the center to capture even more viewership from CNN. In the meantime, CNN actually did move left to appeal to their remaining viewership.

        If it were me I would just flag the you're too right/left comments as trolls and ignore them instead of letting them goad you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Fox News then moved more toward the center to capture even more viewership from CNN.

          Seriously? I've recently taken an occasional look just because I was interested in seeing "how do you spin this and reach an election-determining majority of U.S. Americans?". And it's a bunch of utter garbage, spin and irrelevancy. If that is the result of moving more toward the center, I have no idea where the center (or the outskirts) of Americans actually is supposed to be.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            One of my old friends really liked fox news and I was around him enough to see pretty decent coverage of some things. I saw a fair amount of fox news over a number of years because he had it on every day so I got to watch it travel from far right to more center right.

            Sometimes I did just leave the room if it was bad enough to be annoying. Their website is actually pretty good compared to their competitors imo.

            Many years ago, I used to have CNN on in the background a lot but they went far enough left to annoy me and one of my favorite CNN personalities actually moved to fox.

            My old friend passed away and now fox and cnn are both annoying enough for me to get my news online where I can click on a little x if the coverage is biased or stupid enough.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yeah, even I sometimes browse cnn or msnbc or abcnews. I still can’t get over WAPO calling that ISIS dead dog a scholar, though.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:25am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "I still can’t get over WAPO calling that ISIS dead dog a scholar, though."

                This is the funny thing about facts - he was a scholar by the definition of the term. That shouldn't carry the positive connotations often associated with the word, but by all accounts the man had a doctorate, which makes him a scholar. That's not his primary action in life, but it did happen.

                That outlet perhaps should not have led with that description in the headline, but reaction to it is an interesting example of how bias in reporting can trigger different reactions, even when the information reported is true. You don't have to have Fox or Daily Mail-level misinformation, sometimes all it takes is the way you report the unvarnished truth.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yeah and Hitler was popular. And Mussolini made the trains run on time.

                  How fucking stupid are you?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:23am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh dear, this is what you get when your little world is challenged, huh? I point out that context and full information is important before reacting, and you immediately go Godwin with childish angry insults...

                    No wonder you're so easily manipulated.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:28am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ok you want to defend a man who held a young America lady as a sex slave before murdering her and filmed a young man burned alive in a cage as a “scholar’.

                      He’s a scholar in your view.

                      We all get you 100%.

                      We all hope you and he burn together hell.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:45am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "you want to defend a man"

                        I did not take it that way, why did you?
                        I thought it was a defense of language, not a person.

                        Scholar used to mean a person who learned stuff but did not reflect upon how said knowledge was used.
                        What does the word scholar mean to you? Apparently much more.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:59am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "Scholar used to mean a person who learned stuff but did not reflect upon how said knowledge was used."

                          Exactly. Hitler was apparently a dog lover. Describing him as a dog lover does not mean that you're excusing the Holocaust. It's not perhaps the best thing to lead with in a description of the man, but losing your shit because someone accurately used the description gets nobody anywhere unless they are literally saying "he loved dogs therefore the Holocaust didn't happen).

                          "What does the word scholar mean to you? Apparently much more."

                          There are numerous connotations to the word outside of its main dictionary definition. Our friend above seems to be losing his shit because he's applying a meaning not intended by the article in question. But, this is a great example of why American politics is so divisive - train people to understand one definition of a word, and they can be controlled in their reaction the word's other uses (see: the right-wing definition of "socialist" and the way they react to it vs. what most people who use the word to describe themselves actually mean when they say it)

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:53am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            But what you just said is entirely why nobody trusts the media: they only report the "facts" which agree with their narrative and omit any that don't. It is a dishonest way of reporting news.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 8:08am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Provide links to examples of where in mainstream media this is happening on a frequent and regular basis and then we can discuss it. Otherwise, I'm not seeing it, except in a few rare cases when an unethical journalist publishes something to further his own career. And the rest of the media usually picks up on it and calls it out pretty quickly.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 8:17am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Perhaps, but compared to the alternative of just making shit up, it's far preferable. At least if it's simple omission you can get the full picture by looking at multiple sources. Lots of sources prefer to invent the entire story, then claim that the reason why their version isn't available outside of their self-feeding echo chamber is some kind of conspiracy. That's far worse for anyone who gets caught in such a cycle than bias in "media".

                              Also, bear in mind that what has this fool so wound up is a headline. The full article contained the full context. If people are unable to contain their rage because a headline is written a certain way, that reflects more on the reader than anyone. I bet this guy never even looked at the original, but was rather told by his preferred social media outlet that this is what it said without context. That's the real problem today.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:18am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                PaulT, you and I both know that people don't always read the full article. If they did, there would be no need for headlines. Headlines are a way to determine which article that you may want to delve into. The way the headline was written, most people would not have known that he was the leader of ISIS, and had no reason to read the article. That was likely the point: to report the news in a way that slights Trump. Not only that, it minimizes Islamic extremism.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:09am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  "PaulT, you and I both know that people don't always read the full article"

                                  That is indeed a part of the problem, but anyone who considers themselves remotely aware of the world around them should know not to just read the headline.

                                  "The way the headline was written, most people would not have known that he was the leader of ISIS"

                                  But, they would from the other headlines on the same site that identified him as such.

                                  "That was likely the point: to report the news in a way that slights Trump."

                                  If you want to believe that narrative, there are many other explanations, some more likely. See my comment below - this is probably a case of a ready-made obit where someone forgot to edit the placeholder headline.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 10:28am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              [T]hey only report the "facts" which agree with their narrative and omit any that don't.

                              I’m not saying that never happens, but with regards to this specific story, what exactly is being omitted here? Is WAPO omitting the fact that al-Baghdadi was the leader of ISIS, a well-known terrorist organization, who committed many atrocities?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:14am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Rather than a headline stating that a notorious terrorist who committed genocide had been killed, they called him a religious scholar. I'm surprised they didn't follow with "Trump responsilble for killing father and three children". Their headlines were far worse concerning the covington catholic kid than the leader of ISIS. But they arent pursuing an agenda, right?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:54am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  So basically your complaint is they should stop doing things you don’t like.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:43pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Not to dig in on this tangent that is off-topic to the post, but you leave out some facts:

                                  • The Washington Post only had that awful headline for a brief amount of time
                                  • The headline was called out and mocked across the political spectrum
                                  • The Washington Post apologized for that headline and admitted it was a mistake.

                                  Almost all of your theories act as if none of that happened. It is possible (no, really) that the Washington Post made a (bad) mistake, not that it was driven by some ideology designed to promote ISIS and harm the President. Indeed, that's a much more plausible story than assuming the kind of derangement that you seem to falsely believe exists in the Post's editorial staff.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:04am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    WRT obituaries, it's also worth noting that most newspapers apparently have full obituaries on all kinds of public figures ready to go, so that they don't have to scramble researching and compiling a person's life in the inevitable event of their death. However, because nobody knows how and why a person will die, they tend to be rather neutral in their composition until the time comes. Many a time has a public figure died, and a publication taken to task for not focussing on whatever scandal caused their downfall.

                                    So, most likely explanation here - Washington Post had an obituary pre-written and someone released it without editing the neutral headline. After publishing, the mistake was noted and corrected. But, outrage merchants need their outrage, and they have a highly credulous audience who will take their version of events at face value.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:34am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Except that that wasn't the first headline they released, it was the second. Eventually, they released the third and final one. Which makes your theory seem implausible.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:18am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "Except that that wasn't the first headline they released, it was the second."

                                        First I've heard about that. Do you have a cite for that?

                                        "Eventually, they released the third and final one"

                                        I also haven't heard that, but why is it implausible that they would change the headline more than once after the mob has started at them?

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:37am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      From USA Today:

                                      Its original headline read, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s 'terrorist-in-chief,' dies at 48." But it was later changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48."

                                      As of Monday morning, the headline was "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48."

                                      It seems to me that someone thought that "Terrorist in Chief" was too harsh on ISIS and would give too much credit to Trump for taking him out. They wanted to minimize that while still being factual.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:22am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        "From USA Today"

                                        Why are you quoting a 3rd party source but unable to link to it? I'm not necessarily arguing with your timeline, but if you've brought the page up to copy and paste from it, the polite thing to do is link to the original.

                                        "It seems to me"

                                        It seems to me that there are other opinions, and instead of latching on to one you might consider the others.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:45am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    How can you say that what I said was the likely explanation is false? Not only that, you mischaracterized it. I don't think the post is trying to promote ISIS. I do think that the post is looking to minimize the credit that Trump should get for this raid. I also believe that the post is trying to minimize painting any Islamists as terrorists, even if they are.

                                    The points you made were true, but still have no relevance on the intentions of the posts editors. Considering that it was actually the second headline that they went with (Its original headline read, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s 'terrorist-in-chief,' dies at 48." But it was later changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48." As of Monday morning, the headline was "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.") I doubt that it was a precanned headline or a mistake by a low level writer. This change was made by an editor and I have no idea what the motivation could be other than what I stated above.

                                    This was jumped on precisely because it shows the bias at the post to promote a "woke" point of view. This killing provided the same type of problem for the far left as the statement "Islam is right about women"

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:35am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      "How can you say that what I said was the likely explanation is false?"

                                      How can you say it's the most likely while you're rejecting all other possibilities?

                                      "I have no idea what the motivation could be"

                                      Yet, you will make a single assumption and attack that as though it's the only one.

                                      "This was jumped on precisely because"

                                      ....Trump has been obsessed with attacking the paper since Bezos bought it, and this presented a prime opportunity for his fanboys to attack, and handily distract from the many more important problems his presidency is facing right now.

                                      There could be some truth somewhere in the bias presented, but it's almost secondary to the bias openly practices by many of the right-wing outlets criticising it. Eve n if your assumptions are correct, there are many examples of worse elsewhere, which generally don't even get corrected.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:53am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    And don't say editors don't feel pressure to be unkind to trump, this example about the new york times seems to prove it:

                                    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/05/new-york-times-criticism-donald-trump-spee ch-headline/1929546001/

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:35am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      "And don't say editors don't feel pressure to be unkind to trump"

                                      What do you have to say about the editors pressured to be kind to him?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:31am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        There are many people who think that while Trump has his flaws, he is doing a better job for the citizens of this country than the past several (including bush) administrations did. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean that there isn't a valid argument that many of the things he tries to do are right. Now as far as his execution goes, that leaves something to be desired.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:39am

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          "he is doing a better job for the citizens of this country than the past several (including bush) administrations did"

                                          He's really not. But, I suppose if you're conditioned to believe that places that aren't kind to him are only doing that because they're pressured in some way (rather than being objective provable fact), you might end up with a skewed opinion.

                                          "Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean that there isn't a valid argument that many of the things he tries to do are right"

                                          I'm yet to see any actual examples of this that aren't a spin on an obvious grift meant to enrich him or his creditors. I do, however, have plenty of examples of moves that are clearly detrimental to his supporters and the country as a whole.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:58am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Why do you think potus tries to dull us to words like treason? Say it enough for bs reasons and the word loses its punch.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 5:15pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Of course, if they wanted to spin things as "elitist", then "scholar" is a perfectly serviceable negative epithet when applied to the right sort of target person.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:53am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Ok you want to defend a man"

                        Nope, but you do seem to be the kind of reactionary idiot who's not reading words to understand what I'm actually saying, and prefer to add your own meanings that are not being said.

                        "He’s a scholar in your view."

                        No, he's a scholar according to the dictionary definition of the word. The fact that you apply other meanings to it does not change the fact that the word has the meaning intended by the Post article.

                        He's a murdering scumbag who deserves the fate he received. He's also a man with a specialist doctorate from a university, which means that he's a scholar as well as a scumbag.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 8:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        How is calling a guy a “scholar” defending him or his actions? Al-Baghdadi was a scholar. Hitler was a dog lover. Those are facts and in no way defend them.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 8:55am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          technically everyone who's learned to read is a scholar but it's not the most pertinent thing to people's life

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:46am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "How fucking stupid are you?"

                    Apparently not as much as yourself.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              simality (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              During the Bush administration I watched a fair amount of Fox News and while I remember it being much more pro-Bush I don't remember thinking it was loony tunes compared to CNN or vice versa.

              Around the time Obama entered office I pretty much stopped watching TV altogether. I still read the news but I tried to steer clear of CNN (I can't remember why). BBC became my news source of choice.

              I started paying attention to political news just as the political silly season started ramping up in 2015. To make a long post short I was pretty shocked by the divergence between Fox and CNN. You could no longer watch both and get a clear view of what was going on. It was like they were reporting from different dimensions.

              I still enjoy Fox's science news. But their political news is bat****.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The funny thing about thinking that something has moved left/right in the political spectrum is that it isn't necessarily the thing that has moved - it just seems that way because your personal views have changed.

              It is something you need to take into consideration because everyone consciously or unconsciously modify their views because of what happens around them in life.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No CNN definitely moved left due to right leaning viewers going to fox news.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 30 Oct 2019 @ 5:15am

                  Relative

                  That's your opinion which is colored by what your views on what left/right entails.

                  Are those views exactly the same today as they where "many years ago"? I don't think so.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 5:23am

                    Re: Relative

                    My views haven't changed much.

                    The more right-leaning CNN anchors who moved to fox news publicly stated that CNN moved left from their new home at right leaning fox news.

                    Why are you arguing with me if you obviously didn't even watch the news channels in the years in question? Additionally you don't know anything about me. You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Rocky, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:44am

                      Re: Re: Relative

                      I'm arguing with you because from your viewpoint CNN may have moved to the left but you are saying that they did that as if it was a fact.

                      The two aren't mutually exclusive but isn't it also possible that your views changed?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:26am

                        Re: Re: Re: Relative

                        Regardless of whether my views have ever changed about anything in the decades since that happened, CNN did in fact move left according to the employees of CNN at the time. Arguing with me about it is fucking retarded.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Relative

                        Whether his views have changed or not it is a fact that CNN and Fox has moved left and right respectively - according to their own staff and executive officers.

                        And that just follows the US trend of polarization over the last thirty years which is now at a point not seen since the civil war.

                        Unbiased reporting, today, only exists in the news outlets which cater to the independents in the middle, and that is just too small a demographic for most of major media.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:53am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Yes, political spectrum is defined as the entirety of political opinion, aspiration, etc and this definition is in continual flux.

                What seems to remain constant is greed. It is sometimes very impressive, the pretzel logic contrived in order to support their position(s).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 5:08am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It's a combination of both. Your own views do change according to life experiences, this might be slight or extreme depending on those experiences.

                However, it's also pretty well documented that some news outlets in the US have shifted dramatically, especially when considered on a global rather than local political spectrum (globally, American politics always swings right - which is why it's always silly to see people labelling Democrats as communists, given that elsewhere in the world the same politics are barely centrist)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      jesse jenkins (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 3:09pm

      Re: anonymous coward's comment

      I agree! Techdirt needs to focus on the technical side of events and avoid expressing political views. We get waaaay too much of that elsewhere. Please focus on what you do best, but continue to do that well!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:03am

    Only corrupt deep staters would want to expose corruption.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Slam the Sham 'peachers, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:08am

    Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's money!

    Clickbait, Maz. Happy to see you at last (been a month!) committing, happy to bite on this!

    Your propaganda bubble / voluntary blindness / need for a story as usual led you into making fool statements that are just repeating prior allegations.

    Biden Used His Influence To Help Son in US Too, Not Just Europe

    We're not supposed to look at Joe Biden's conflicts of interest - the fact that he shouldn't have been involved in sending letters to federal agencies on issues his son was involved in, the fact that he shouldn't have been pressuring the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor who had at any time been involved in investigating a company where his son was a board member.

    http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2019/10/biden-used-his-influence-to-help-son-in.html

    And then there's your prior "libertrarian", "free markets" hero for whom this is just too much:

    Impeachment...or CIA Coup?

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-co up/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:29am

      Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's mon

      Is Donald going to continue to reveal our troop movements and strategies?

      I understand the "oh, look over there" attempt to distract but I am interested in whether the potus has committed high crimes, why do you try to cover it up?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:36am

      Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's mon

      Funny how none of this addresses how Trump apparently asked for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in exchange for financial and military aid. But I guess if you can't shoot the message, shooting the messenger is the next best thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 29 Oct 2019 @ 4:26pm

        Re: Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's

        But I guess if you can't shoot the message, shooting the messenger is the next best thing.

        And the NRA will make sure that you have what it takes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:24am

        Re: Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's

        "But I guess if you can't shoot the message, shooting the messenger is the next best thing."

        Only in the mids of echo chamber dwellers like this guy. The rest of us understand that the character of the whistleblower is pretty much irrelevant at this point - the actions Trump has been accused of have been independently verified. If I call 911 on you because I can benefit from your arrest, that doesn't excuse you being caught red handed by the cops who answered the call.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:20am

        Re: Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's

        I guess if you can't shoot the message, shooting the messenger is the next best thing.

        If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.

        If the law is on your side, pound the law.

        If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

        A whole lot of table-pounding going on by the Republicans right now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:38am

      Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Blueballs is crushing hard

      Donny’s still not gonna touch it bro.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 3:34pm

      Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's mon

      Damn straight, big guy!

      I can't wait to see Biden locked up right after you're done locking Hillary up. I hear that's going to happen any day now.
      Probably the day after the Mexican wall check comes in the mail.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 6:00pm

        Re: Re: Only thing confirmed so far is Biden / son got Ukraine's

        First they need to find the pizza parlor pedophiles, but in order for that to happen they need to find a judge who says that Shiva Ayyadurai invented email.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    norahc (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:09am

    So which Twitter account is Devin Nunes going to sue over this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:20am

    Here's what doesn't make sense to me; If Nunes' aide knows the whistleblower's identity, surely Trump would know it by now and if Trump knew the person's name, there's about a 99.9999999% chance he would have blurted it out on Twitter by now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bill Poser (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:25am

    why does staffer know?

    Why does a random committee staff member even know the name of the whistleblower? That should be limited to a very few people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:25am

    Wrong conclusion

    highlights just how ill-prepared our government is to deal with whistleblowers

    You don't mean "our government", you mean "this government". There has not been any government in the history of the United States (and I include the Nixon administration) that was as pervasively corrupt and alien to the concept of doing the right thing if you look at its support body in form of the administration and the party-aligned members of Congress.

    With this level of corruption and absence of morals, regulations which ultimately depend on people conscientiously executing them, cannot ultimately attain their purpose.

    As long as people vote for open crooks and their bootlickers, you can shout all day long about insufficient laws and regulations. There is little doubt that the impeachment procedures, no matter what they turn up, will be laughed out of the Senate trial.

    The only hope that remains is for voters to realize that their only chance of maintaining a republic is to vote for candidates with integrity, and when everybody does this already in Congressional elections and the primaries, they'll get the choice between several different presidential candidates and parties suitable for leading the country.

    But you can't fix the current amount of broken without changing the people responsible for making laws count.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:17pm

      Re: Wrong conclusion

      Please DO NOT stop taking your meds. When you do you are delusional.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:17pm

      Re: Wrong conclusion

      No government this corrupt?

      ...

      Were you asleep for 8 years of Obama?

      Wiretapping the AP
      Spying on all Americans
      Using the IRS to target his political opponents
      Having a kill list
      Killing an American away from an active war zone
      Wiretapping his political opponents (and if you think he didn't, I got some great property in Montana, you can see the Eiffel Tower from it)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:13pm

        Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

        ?
        Collecting metadata, yea.
        Not proven
        Yea, any of them not terrorists?
        Details
        Bullshit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 2:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

          All I saw was a big block of whataboutobama.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 3:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

            her emails !!!!1111

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

              It must be hard for these guys... they've spent so long with the whataboutism, they haven't a clue how to respond when someone actually steps up and demands they account for their own behaviour.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:06am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                Go piss up a rope with your asinine demands.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:36am

                  Behavior proven

                  Case in point.

                  It's kind of tragicomic that they actually go out of their way to prove that they don't have a factual response.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 6:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                  Make more rabble! We need more rabble to save the DOTUS! Rabble harder!!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:20am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                People that claim whataboutism usually do so to shield their own hypocrisy

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 11:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                  People who complain about being called out on the whataboutism are usually just mad they got called out on their obvious bullshit.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:06pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                    Nothing that the original poster said was incorrect, you just don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative. but keep up your lies

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:31pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Are you talking about David or the AC that was implying Obama was the most corrupt ever?

                      If David, I agree most of it was factually correct but would say you might be arguing against the wrong guy.

                      If you mean the AC who thought Obama was more corrupt than Trump, well, I have a space bridge to sell you.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:34pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        The AC provided specific examples as to why the obama administration was corrupt. I can provide several more:
                        fast and furious, solyndra, biden's son, a 900B stimulus that didnt really create any jobs or build any infrastructure, cash for clunkers, the bombing of libya, "if you like your doctor you can keep him", etc.

                        David provided none. The media amplifies every stupid thing trump does; his administration hasnt been perfect by a long shot, but he is at least trying to make things better for average americans. He cares more about his ego than political power, but strangely that is generally a good thing.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 6:12pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          He cares more about his ego than political power, but strangely that is generally a good thing.

                          Why? Are you trying to suggest that Trump's desire to increase his political power pales in comparison to his need to stroke his ego, so any move on his part to increase his political clout isn't worth worrying about? Because Trump's ego and political power aren't exactly mutually exclusive...

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:40pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          The AC provided specific examples as to why the obama administration was corrupt.

                          And absolutely zero facts to back them up. Also, spying on all americans? Bush started that, so maybe be careful that boomerang doesn't hit you on its return flight.

                          I can provide several more:

                          This should be good.

                          fast and furious, solyndra, biden's son, a 900B stimulus that didnt really create any jobs or build any infrastructure, cash for clunkers, the bombing of libya, "if you like your doctor you can keep him", etc.

                          Biden's son? Really?

                          Here's some more for you: Iraq war, weapons of mass destruction, Patriot Act, NSA and CIA mass spying, Lawyergate, Karl Rove, email controversy (yeah, he did it before Hillary), Yellowcake, etc...

                          You might check out this link, the list of scandals under Obama is FAR from being the longest. Every presidency has had scandals, and every one going forward will continue to have scandals. Trump has taken it to a new level, especially if we're talking blatant, law flouting, anti-democratic, bordering on dictator and tyrant levels of corruption.

                          David provided none.

                          So? He wasn't providing any examples, he was stating his opinion. It was the AC that started bringing examples into. And given the sheer amount of crap Trump has pulled, I don't think examples were needed in his opening statement. It's just a given.

                          The media amplifies every stupid thing trump does;

                          Nice to hear you agree with us that he is incompetent.

                          his administration hasnt been perfect by a long shot

                          Really, really long shot.

                          but he is at least trying to make things better for average americans.

                          Then why are we all worse off? Prices of goods are going up, he struck down modest ISP privacy regulations, took away access to the white house network from the security team that was specifically created to secure it, constantly attacks freedom of speech, has admitted to pressuring foreign governments to investigate private American citizens for no reason other than to get dirt on his political enemies, I could go on for days.

                          He cares more about his ego than political power,

                          And you know what strokes his ego? Having more political power.

                          but strangely that is generally a good thing.

                          No, it's not. It's never a good thing, even in private citizens. And it's an absolutely HORRIBLE trait to have in the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. If he cares more about himself than anything else, he is NOT going to make good decisions that affect the rest of the country. It's just not possible.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:31am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "Biden's son? Really?"

                            Yeah, Biden's son. You know, the guy over whom Trump committed an impeachable offence by asking a foreign power to investigate, in order to gain over his political rivals in return for political and military aid?

                            But...durrr...Obama baaadd....

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:15am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "The AC provided specific examples as to why the obama administration was corrupt."

                          Yet, none of that is a defence of Trump doing the same or worse. If you can't defend the man's actions, it's irrelevant what Obama did - you just admitted that Trump's actions are indefensible.

                          "The media amplifies every stupid thing trump does"

                          Because he's a) doing a lot of stupid shit and b) is the supposed leader of the free world and should be acting to a higher standard, as his actions affect everybody on the planet.

                          "but he is at least trying to make things better for average americans"

                          No, he's really not, but believe that propaganda. For example, look at what the China tarriffs have cost Americans so far (several major company collapses and double the bailout money to farmers compare to the 2008 auto bailouts). So far.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:29am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          solyndra, biden's son, a 900B stimulus that didnt really create any jobs or build any infrastructure, cash for clunkers, the bombing of libya, "if you like your doctor you can keep him", etc.

                          You largely seem to be conflating policy you don't like (even policy with bad outcomes) with corruption.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:36pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                      Thanks for so aptly proving my point bro.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:12am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                  "People that claim whataboutism usually do so to shield their own hypocrisy"

                  No, it's to note that people are apparently incapable of defending a certain position and instead deflect blame. If your answer to "why did Trump do X" is "well, Y does it too!", that suggests you're incapable of defending X. It doesn't matter what Y does and if it's remotely similar, and it's telling if you think that's a good counter-argument.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Wild e-Beest, 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:14pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

                "Eve n if your assumptions are correct, there are many examples of worse elsewhere..."
                https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191028/23105443276/report-devin-nunes-aide-go ing-around-leaking-ukraine-call-whistleblowers-name.shtml#c2519

                You mean like that?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 29 Oct 2019 @ 8:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wrong conclusion

          The killing is probably in reference to when the DoD used a drone to target a person in the middle east that joined a terror group but previously/still had claims of being a us citizen. Obama approved that op as far as I remember.

          My opinion is being a citizen the guy deserved a trial first but going and joining a terror group kind of makes me fuzzy on the legal precedent.

          But despite whatever a previous president did it still doesn't excuse the current or future presidents from breaking the law.

          As far as the most corrupt presidency. In my lifetime I agree it is. However presidents in the past have also done shady things like Jackson and his disregard of treaties with Native Americans. If instant communication existed back then we probably would have even more documentation of corruption by him and others.

          I do believe Trump gets the award for most stupid and short-sighted president though.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        simality (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:03am

        Dude are YOU asleep?

        Even IF that were all entirely correct (which it is not) it pales in comparison to:

        • A known Russian asset as the NSA.
        • A leading critic of the EPA at the head of the EPA.
        • A department of the interior staffed by ex-lobbyests who are working hard to roll back all the protections preventing oil companies from drilling on national preserves.
        • Chronic use of private jets on the public dime.
        • $31,000 dining set at HUD.
        • NUMEROUS violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
        • Stacking the judiciary with unqualified judges (some of whom have never even argued a case) who happen to be related to Trump cronies.
        • Twisting the law to justify separating hundreds (if not thousands) of children from their parents.
          ** And then losing those children.

        And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

        In ANY OTHER administration, any ONE of these scandals (including the dining set) would be the "scandal of the year". In this administration it is just business as usual.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 11:29am

    All this talk about Facebook fact checking everything posted there and has anyone thought that maybe the politicians need to fact check themselves before putting up ads? We wont go into the whole leaking information or disinformation and how this administration HATES that, so they say, unless it helps them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:20pm

    "now confirmed quid pro quo call" .. I don't think that's true.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:27pm

      Re:

      Then you haven't been paying attention -- or you've been paying attention to people who are trying to deliberately mislead you.

      At this point, the White House's own transcript of the call has shown that it was quid pro quo. The WH chief of staff has admitted it was quid pro quo, as has the ambassador to the EU and the ambassador to Ukraine.

      At this point, you have to be ignorant or willfully stupid to not recognize reality. Which is it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    restless94110 (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:20pm

    Surely You Jest

    Why would you call a Deep State operative a whistle blower? By the way, there is no part of the whistle blower law that requires a "whistle blower" to be anonymous. In fact, the "whistle blower" laws protect a "whistle blower" from persecution, therefore identifying him/her/it is common and expected. Why the difference in policy behavior in this one case?
    Why are you so prejudiced and dumb, Mike?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:26pm

      Re: Surely You Jest

      Why does a whistleblower need to reveal their identity to be protected from persecution? Why can't they have their identity protected to prevent that persecution in the first place?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 12:35pm

        Re: Re: Surely You Jest

        The whistle blower's identity is needed to that they can be protected by having a compulary drug deal do wrong on them (even if they never engaged in that kind of behavior).

        Afterwards they will be absolutely safe from all forms of presecution.

        /sarcasm

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2019 @ 2:26pm

      Re: Surely You Jest

      “Why are you so prejudiced and dumb, Mike?“

      Probably because he got vaccinated. Ain’t that right bro?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 10:41pm

      Re: Surely You Jest

      Dumb? Look who's talking.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 10:43am

      Re: Surely You Jest

      Why would you call a Deep State operative a whistle blower?

      Why would you call a whistleblower a Deep State operative? We’re calling this person a whistleblower because, among other things, they filled out and submitted a formal whistleblower complaint. Legally speaking, they are a whistleblower.

      By the way, there is no part of the whistle blower law that requires a "whistle blower" to be anonymous.

      No part of the whistleblower act required their identity to be public, either.

      In fact, the "whistle blower" laws protect a "whistle blower" from persecution,

      And one way to enforce that is to keep their identity hidden from others, at least until the investigation into the complaint is finished.

      therefore identifying him/her/it is common and expected. Why the difference in policy behavior in this one case?

      I don’t know how an object could be a whistleblower. At any rate, since when has identifying a whistleblower been common or expected? Show us evidence that demonstrates that there is anything unusual about hiding a whistleblower’s identity or that previously whistleblowers who have gone through official channels have been routinely outed. If they have, that is a problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re: Surely You Jest

        You probably consider the person who started the whole Trump-Russia Collusion narrative a whistleblower also.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If I recall correctly, there was no "whistleblowing" involved in that. Instead it was agents doing their job and following up on leads.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:09am

          Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

          Huh? How is that even related?

          No, I don’t think that the “person who started the whole Trump-Russia Collision narrative” was a whistleblower. A whistleblower would be someone on the inside letting an authority or the public know about potential wrongdoing by others of their own volition in exchange for nothing other than possibly receiving protection from retaliation. None of that applies to that particular scandal, AFAICT. That is not to say there was nothing backing up that narrative (there absolutely was, even if there ended up not being any direct collusion between Russia and Trump himself), nor that any subsequent investigations into the matter were illegitimate or a waste of time. It’s just not whistleblowing.

          By contrast, the current investigation is predicated on someone within the Trump administration alleging wrongdoing by others within the administration (including Trump himself) completely voluntarily and without compensation, and who submitted information on those allegations to an authority who can act on or investigate them. Even if the allegations were false (which they clearly aren’t) or no further action was taken on the complaint, the person making the allegations is still a whistleblower. They even went through proper channels in disseminating the information by submitting a formal whistleblower complaint under the Whistleblower Act.

          I don’t see any reason that this person is not a whistleblower.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

            If accounts of who the suspected whistleblower is, then it is a CIA agent who obtained the information 2nd hand, not someone within the trump administration. This agent was a close associate of John Brennan and Susan Rice, two people who are definitely partisan. It is more likely a political hit job than a true whistleblower, just like the Russian collusion narrative. And there was nothing legitimate to the origins of that, it was an excuse to justify spying. Not much different than watergate in my opinion. But the Durham investigation will get o the bottom of it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              This agent was a close associate of John Brennan and Susan Rice

              Huh? How can you possibly know that when we don't even know who the whistleblower is? All we know is that he is likely a CIA agent, that's all. To say that he is a close associate of anyone in particular is a HUGE leap of logic.

              The entire rest of of your post is hot air with nothing in the way of actual facts to back them up.

              it was an excuse to justify spying

              So just like how 9/11 was an excuse for Bush to justify spying on the entire country?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

              If accounts of who the suspected whistleblower is, then it is a CIA agent who obtained the information 2nd hand, not someone within the trump administration.

              The CIA is a part of the Trump administration. And the secondhand part is irrelevant.

              This agent was a close associate of John Brennan and Susan Rice, two people who are definitely partisan.

              1) We have no reason to believe that.

              2) Even if true, it’s irrelevant.

              It is more likely a political hit job than a true whistleblower, just like the Russian collusion narrative.

              Again, you still haven’t given any evidence to support that either one of those is or is likely to be politically motivated.

              At any rate, the motives of the whistleblower are completely irrelevant to determining whether or not they are a whistleblower. I though I made clear that even if the allegations turn out to be false or not serious enough to merit action, the person making the allegations is still a whistleblower. And the motives are also irrelevant if we determine the facts underlying the allegations have been proven (and they have). A true statement doesn’t become less true because the person saying it has an ulterior motive.

              And there was nothing legitimate to the origins of that, it was an excuse to justify spying.

              First, we know with all reasonable certainty that the Russians were and are attempting to interfere with our elections. How much of an impact they had is an open question, but they were doing it.

              Second, Trump and his campaign and associates were acting suspicious as hell throughout, often lying about contacts they’d had with Russia.

              Third, a number of members of Trump’s campaign were indicted and either pled guilty or were convicted for conduct related to collusion with foreign governments.

              So there was plenty of legitimacy to the origins of that.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

              It is more likely a political hit job than a true whistleblower

              What does it matter why he or she did it when the allegations have been demonstrated to be correct?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

                "What does it matter why he or she did it when the allegations have been demonstrated to be correct?"

                Exactly. This is why it's fun seeing Trump and his minions flail so hard to make this into some kind of grand conspiracy. It doesn't matter at this point whether the whistleblower was Putin himself, the impeachable acts reported have been independently verified as fact.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely You Jest

                  Much of what is being treated as fact is no more than subjective interpretation of what was spoken between the Presidents of the US and Ukraine. By way of one trivial example, a request is stated by others to be a demand. Quid pro quo is asserted as being part of the conversation even though withholding of foreign aid was never discussed. The list goes on.

                  The best evidence of what was said and how it was understood is what the principals to the conversation have to say about it. Thus far that evidence does not lend support to all the subjective interpretations being promoted by those claiming wrongdoing.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:40am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Much of what is being treated as fact is no more than subjective interpretation of what was spoken between the Presidents of the US and Ukraine.

                    Oh? So Trump did not ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival with no basis of any wrongdoing? Pretty sure that was explicitly stated.

                    By way of one trivial example, a request is stated by others to be a demand.

                    A demand can be implied and not explicitly stated.

                    Quid pro quo is asserted as being part of the conversation even though withholding of foreign aid was never discussed.

                    Except that it was. Not on that call, but it was discussed in other correspondence and the Ukrainians were aware of it.

                    The list goes on.

                    Oh, please do. I would love to shred, I mean, hear any other examples you may have.

                    The best evidence of what was said and how it was understood is what the principals to the conversation have to say about it.

                    Not if the primary "principal" is known to lie and twist facts to suit his purposes. He, by default, becomes an untrustworthy source. That's also not how investigations work. You never take the word of the person you are investigating on their own. You verify and corroborate with other sources. So far the other sources do not corroborate what Trump has said.

                    Thus far that evidence does not lend support to all the subjective interpretations being promoted by those claiming wrongdoing.

                    I'm really curious to know where you are getting your information from then, because:

                    1. Trump has himself admitted to asking a foreign government to investigate his political rival based on nothing but conspiracy theories. (We could stop right there, as that is in direct violation of the Constitution. No quid pro quo needed.)
                    2. Multiple people who were present in the room for the call and diplomats based in the US and Ukraine have all stated that the aid and/or a white house meeting was being held up until the Ukraine agreed to open investigations into the Bidens.

                    You were saying?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 12:35pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Trump has himself admitted to asking a foreign government to investigate his political rival based on nothing but conspiracy theories. (We could stop right there, as that is in direct violation of the Constitution. No quid pro quo needed.)

                      Investigating conspiracy theories is one of the President's main jobs as the head law enforcement officer of the United States.

                      Bush and Obama spent a fairly large part of their Presidencies investigating conspiracies too

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:18pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Investigating conspiracy theories is one of the President's main jobs as the head law enforcement officer of the United States.

                        No it most certainly is NOT.

                        A conspiracy theory is just that, a theory with no facts or evidence to back it up. A conspiracy theory is the US was behind 9/11; that airplane contrails are really mind control chemicals; the earth is flat and doesn't revolve around the sun; no children died at Sandyhook; and that Biden's son did anything wrong while on the board of directors for a Ukranian gas company.

                        No law enforcement person or agency is allowed to go around and investigate whomever they want without any facts or evidence of wrongdoing to back it up. That's called a fishing expedition and is not allowed under US law. And definitely not when you are the president accepting foreign aid to get dirt on your political opponent.

                        Bush and Obama spent a fairly large part of their Presidencies investigating conspiracies too

                        Actual conspiracies, yes. NOT conspiracy theories. There is a difference. Actual conspiracies are based on hard evidence of wrongdoing; conspiracy theories have no basis in reality.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:58pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I don't think you know the english meaning of the word conspiracy or theory

                          All conspiracy charges are supposed to be conspiracy theories until they get a guilty or not guilty in court

                          I guess it could be a guilty until proven innocent attitude too

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:43pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I don't think you know the english meaning of the word conspiracy or theory

                            I don't know if you're actually stupid, or just playing stupid, but the phrase "conspiracy theory" has taken on meaning beyond the separate meanings of its constituent words.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 6:39pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I don't think you know the english meaning of the word conspiracy or theory

                            Well I know you don't, given how you completely ignored my numerous examples of conspiracy theories.

                            All conspiracy charges are supposed to be conspiracy theories until they get a guilty or not guilty in court

                            Yes, but you don't take someone to court just because of a conspiracy theory some half-wit cooked up in his brain after getting high one night. You have to have evidence that someone did something wrong. And in the case of Biden and his son, there is no evidence that he did. Therefore he is innocent until proven guilty. Or more accurately in this case, he didn't do anything wrong, unless someone can come up with evidence to the contrary.

                            I guess it could be a guilty until proven innocent attitude too

                            That's actually what you are describing, not me.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:00pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          also US citizens have been imprisoned for aiding al queda so technically... there were some

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 6:48pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Some what? People who broke the law and there was evidence proving it? Yeah. Where's the evidence the Bidens broke the law?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 9:48am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t one purpose of an investigation to develop evidence?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:26pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                No, it's to establish proof. New evidence may be uncovered as part of that investigation but investigations do not start off with no evidence at all. That's called being guilty until proven innocent, a fishing expedition, or false accusations.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:44pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  I have seen some of Trump's accusations against Biden because he bought ads on the local TV station. Trump claims to have enough for an investigation.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:31pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    He claims to, yet he hasn't actually shown any. I can claim I've been to the moon and back, but unless I have evidence to back it up, you shouldn't believe me.

                                    So again, provide the evidence, then open the investigation. If you can't or won't provide any evidence, then you have no case.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:50pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I am not an orange billionaire so I don't claim to have evidence against Biden.

                                      I also don't know why I would even care or want to have a case against Biden.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:12am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    What Trump claims is his "evidence" consists entirely of fantasy internet conspiracy theories.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 8:26am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I hate it when people make stuff up and I am conflicted about whether I care enough to argue about it. uhhhh

                                      Trump claims Obama/Biden demands to Ukraine were corruption. He then made the opposite demands of Ukraine for his turn in office. Because of how subjective corruption can be I can see it from both sides.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:04am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Not sure how a video of Biden bragging about getting Ukraine to dismiss a prosecutor comprises a “fantasy internet conspiracy theor(y)”.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:12am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Perhaps the part where the corruption conspiracy theory and the real world are polar opposites of each other

                                        i.e. Biden properly carrying out his job is the opposite of what a corrupt-looking action would have been - not dismissing the prosecutor.

                                        And then there's the related fairy tale that CrowdStrike is a Ukrainian company hired by the DNC to hide its servers from the FBI.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:28am

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          omfg

                                          Biden's job was to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

                                          Biden's actions were not something I would probably care about if it were up to me. However, having grown up in a town where a black cop bit a child's lip off because he got called a ni**er and the lesbian cop was outed and harassed out of her job by the other cops (and no charges or anything similar were pressed in either case) Trump's actions are tame when it come to what people get away with in the name of law enforcement.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:40am

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            Sorry, that was

                                            I would NOT care about Biden's actions and would have been perfectly fine with getting his kid out of trouble.

                                            I think Biden getting a foreign and possibly anti-American prosecutor off his son was fine, but it wasn't his paid government job.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 10:41am

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              I think Biden getting a foreign and possibly anti-American prosecutor off his son was fine

                                              Except that's not what happened. The entire US government wanted that prosecutor ousted because he was known to be extremely corrupt. Biden was carrying out the pre-set course of the rest of the government. He would have done the same damn thing whether his son was on the board or not because ousting that prosecutor had nothing to do with his son.

                                              but it wasn't his paid government job

                                              To protect his son? No. To carry out the duties and responsibilities of his office? Yes. Which is what happened.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:59am

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            In my hometown, the DARE officer and the elementary school gym teacher were also making/selling meth from a home together but they did get charged

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 10:35am

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          There is no way you can know if what he did was proper as I rather doubt you are fully informed of all salient facts. I know I am not, even after having read numerous sources spanning much of the political spectrum. That is what an investigation is for.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 1:31pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            [Asserts facts not in evidence]

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:09pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              You are so-o-o insightful and full of valuable knowledge.

                                              Oops. Sorry. I am assuming facts manifestly not in evidence, My bad.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:35pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                Your misplaced sarcasm is unintentionally accurate when read as serious, considering that

                                                I know I am not [fully informed of all salient facts]

                                                Is the one and only evidence-backed statement you've made this entire thread.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:20pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            There is no way you can know if what he did was proper

                                            Beg to differ considering that that was what the entire rest of the US government wanted him to do. Even the republicans wanted that prosecutor removed.

                                            as I rather doubt you are fully informed of all salient facts

                                            Well it's obvious you aren't.

                                            I know I am not

                                            Well at least you admit it.

                                            even after having read numerous sources spanning much of the political spectrum.

                                            Ah you must have missed the exact time period then when pretty much all of the US government and others wanted him removed because he was corrupt. There, now you have been informed of all the "salient facts".

                                            That is what an investigation is for.

                                            Yes, but only if there is evidence of wrongdoing. Seriously, I just got done explaining this to the other guy. It is against the law to open an investigation if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. That's called a "fishing expedition" and goes against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 8:43am

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              Wow...seems to me that you and some of your compatriots here need to share your collective legal expertise with the prosecutors in New York who have been seeking the President’s tax records. Your proclamations about evidence and investigations suggest to me that those prosecutors are on very shaky legal grounds.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 7:18pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                Not actually. There is ample evidence to support that Trump is hiding something by not releasing his tax returns.

                                                1. He's the first president in decades to not release his returns as is customary.
                                                2. He promised to do so but never did.
                                                3. He lied about not being able to release them.
                                                4. He also has refused to divest himself of businesses and investments that could pose domestic or international conflicts of interest.

                                                There's more too but that alone should be sufficient evidence to warrant taking a look at his tax returns as it's quite apparent he doesn't actually want people to see them for some reason. The fact that he hasn't distanced himself from his personal business interests seriously suggests they would reveal major conflicts of interest.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 2:03am

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  "The fact that he hasn't distanced himself from his personal business interests seriously suggests they would reveal major conflicts of interest."

                                                  That's likely, but I doubt that Trump really cares about that. He's just been using his Twitter account (which, remember, has been classified as an official White House form of communication in the past) to pimp his son's now book. For any other president, this type of personal profiteering via government channels would be a major scandal, for this one it barely registers.

                                                  No, there's 2 likely reasons that he's refusing to release them. One is that the official definition of "high crimes and misdeamenors" relating to the article of impeachment includes tax evasion - and you can guarantee that a con man and grifter like Trump has not paid his share. The second is that they will almost certainly show that he's nowhere near as rich as he's claimed to be, and he could never knowingly admit that.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    nasch (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 7:30am

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    One is that the official definition of "high crimes and misdeamenors" relating to the article of impeachment includes tax evasion

                                                    There is no constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's up to Congress to decide what qualifies.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                    • icon
                                                      PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 7:50am

                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                      Perhaps not constitutional, but federal judges have been removed for it so there is precedent. I suspect that Trump is at least concerned about how the last 8 years of his books will look, hence his unwillingness to release them. Whether that's to the level of further impeachability will be down to the facts eventually discovered and political will to do something about it.

                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 3:27am

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  You convinced me! Someone must be investigated because he will not release information he has absolutely no obligation to release. After all, if he has done nothing wrong, then why the reluctance to disclose? I am sure if you have nothing to hide you would happily submit to a search of your home, vehicle, phone, etc. by law enforcement authorities just to show him how things are done by patriotic Americans.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 3:39am

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    I'm sure you had exactly the same reaction when things that were way, way, less relevant to the office were not released by Obama when demanded. Right?

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    Toom1275 (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 8:44pm

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    he has absolutely no obligation to release.

                                                    People with knowledge on the subject, such as the court, would beg to differ.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                    • identicon
                                                      Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 9:45pm

                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                      Of course, but the comment was directed to another issue raised by someone else.

                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 9:57pm

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    After all, if he has done nothing wrong

                                                    Well, see, that's the thing, there IS evidence to suggest he HAS done something wrong. People aren't just asking to see his returns because he appears to be an innocent little daisy. No, he appears to be a profiteering liar and his returns are suspected to contain proof (not just evidence) of that fact.

                                                    This is bolstered by the fact that he is actively trying to block their release after publicly stating (multiple times) that he would do so, and then lying about why he couldn't. So, if he was so innocent, why lie about releasing his returns, then double down and lie again, fabricating reasons why he is unable to? Those aren't the actions of someone with nothing to hide, those are the actions of somebody who knows he did something wrong and is trying to keep from getting in trouble.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                    • identicon
                                                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:23am

                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                      And that evidence is? Be specific.

                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                      • icon
                                                        PaulT (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:37am

                                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:51am

                                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                          The branch of government that understands tax schemes is the IRS.

                                                          Don’t any of you find it the least bit curious that someone other than the IRS (or state counterparts) is behind the current claims of evasion?

                                                          BTW, the linked article is behind an impenetrable paywall. Citing something that cannot be accessed reminds me of all the secrecy being practiced by the Democrats in the House.

                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                          • icon
                                                            PaulT (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 4:38am

                                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                            "Don’t any of you find it the least bit curious that someone other than the IRS (or state counterparts) is behind the current claims of evasion?"

                                                            Not really, the con games he's been running for decades have been pretty obvious to anyone who's been paying attention.

                                                            "BTW, the linked article is behind an impenetrable paywall'

                                                            It worked for me. I hear that viewing it in incognito mode or clearing cookies helps if you're being blocked, I only linked to it as it seems to be the primary source used by other sites listing Trump's history in the area. I saw a lot of them on a quick Google search, maybe you're like to to that if this other top result doesn't work:

                                                            https://www.ais-cpa.com/tax-fraud-by-the-numbers-the-trump-timeline/

                                                            "all the secrecy being practiced by the Democrats in the House"

                                                            You mean, using the tactics that were explicit approved by the last congress, using behind-closed-doors meeting in the same way they were used during the Clinton impeachment process? Which is, by the way, designed to prevent the grandstanding and collusion that the people being investigated have been known to enjoy during public proceedings?

                                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 6:00am

                                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                              Have read the second link. For a site associated with CPAs, it is remarkably ignorant of tax law and tax avoidance schemes (as opposed to tax evasion schemes).

                                                              I have yet to read anything that even remotely presents a compelling case of tax evasion. Everything to date merely impresses upon me the wisdom of using the very best tax lawyers you can find and afford to minimize what the government tries to take.

                                                              Once again, it is noteworthy that the IRS and state taxing authorities are not behind these efforts. I presume they have looked at these schemes over the years during the many audits they have performed.

                                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • icon
                                                                PaulT (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 6:47am

                                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                "For a site associated with CPAs, it is remarkably ignorant of tax law and tax avoidance schemes (as opposed to tax evasion schemes)."

                                                                Well, I'm no expert on the subject, and I only linked you there because you were somehow unable to read the primary source they used. But, whichever way you spin it, the man is known for not paying his way (stiffing contractors, going into bankruptcy to avoid paying for failed businesses, etc). The jury may be out on whether or not what he does is strictly legal according to the IRS, but if he's not technically committing massive tax evasion, it's only because he paid someone to find the right excuse.

                                                                "Everything to date merely impresses upon me the wisdom of using the very best tax lawyers you can find and afford to minimize what the government tries to take."

                                                                Only if you don't want to pay into the society that supports you and force people with far less options to pay far more (when the rich refuse to pay taxes, it's the poor who get screwed). Whether or not it's legal, someone as rich as Trump claims to be should not be paying a lower effective level of taxes than someone on welfare. Especially as he's constantly using taxes dollars to try and enrich himself further.

                                                                "Once again, it is noteworthy that the IRS and state taxing authorities are not behind these efforts"

                                                                Not really.

                                                                "I presume they have looked at these schemes over the years during the many audits they have performed."

                                                                Trump has claimed that the reason why he cannot release them is because he's currently under audit (which the IRS says is a lie: https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2019/04/10/the-presidents-under-audit-tax-excuse-is-and-al ways-has-been-bogus/#26a607cf1818). If he's telling the truth, the reason you haven't heard from the IRS is because they're so busy auditing him.

                                                                There is also, of course, the possibility that Trump is (as usual) abusing his power and ordering the IRS not to release the returns, but with nobody willing to take the risk of whistleblowing like people have with Trump's many other misdeeds.

                                                                We shall see what comes of this, but I think history and evidence supports my idea more than yours.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 2:31pm

                                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                  I expect comments like this on a site replete with persons suffering advanced-stage TDS, like Occupy Democrats, and not a site like TD that regularly and forcefully rails against the exercise of raw governmental power.

                                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:46pm

                                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                    And we expect comments like yours from people like you who have trouble accepting facts and reality.

                                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 4:05pm

                                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                      And comments like yours are expected from persons who demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of substantive federal law.

                                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 5:34pm

                                                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                        You're free to point out exactly which law I don't understand and the exact section that proves me wrong. If you do not, I will assume you have no idea what you're talking about and will consider you to be just blowing hot air.

                                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 5:44pm

                                                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                          From your comments it is readily apparent to anyone engaged in the practice of law that you do not. Clearly you take a strong interest in current events, but when those events depend upon knowing the provisions of various laws, court cases, and legal procedure. your background places you at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to make sense of facts being reported by the media.

                                                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 6:29pm

                                                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                            From your comments it is readily apparent to anyone engaged in the practice of law that you do not.

                                                                            As you have not pointed out which law I do not understand and why, it is readily apparent to anyone (not just those practicing law) that you have no idea what you are talking about and have no facts to back up your statement. What's the saying? Oh yes:

                                                                            [Citation needed.]

                                                                            Clearly you take a strong interest in current events, but when those events depend upon knowing the provisions of various laws, court cases, and legal procedure. your background places you at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to make sense of facts being reported by the media.

                                                                            Why, I do believe I've struck a nerve. Please, by all means, quote to me the exact law that says a whistleblower's identity MUST be disclosed and CANNOT be withheld. Go on. It's ok. You can do it. Just a little bit of research and a quick link. Come on. Don't be shy.

                                                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:39pm

                                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                Have read the second link. For a site associated with CPAs, it is remarkably ignorant of tax law and tax avoidance schemes (as opposed to tax evasion schemes).

                                                                Do please elaborate. And be specific!

                                                                I have yet to read anything that even remotely presents a compelling case of tax evasion.

                                                                Well then perhaps you don't understand tax law as well as you think you do.

                                                                Everything to date merely impresses upon me the wisdom of using the very best tax lawyers you can find and afford to minimize what the government tries to take.

                                                                If you need a lawyer to do your taxes then you aren't abiding by the law.

                                                                Once again, it is noteworthy that the IRS and state taxing authorities are not behind these efforts.

                                                                And again I say, no it's not.

                                                                I presume they have looked at these schemes over the years during the many audits they have performed.

                                                                You presume, but you don't know.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                            • icon
                                                              nasch (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 6:28am

                                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                              Closed hearings which, it is important to note, Republicans can attend.

                                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • icon
                                                                PaulT (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 11:24am

                                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                Yes, it's important to remember that idiotic stunt where a group of them stormed a session in progress. Not only were there already Republicans inside, some of the people doing the storming were actually eligible to enter normally if they chose to. It's just theatre to get idiots to defend the indefensible.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 2:21pm

                                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                You mean the hearings where the chairman of the Intelligence Committee has assumed the power to override committee members by instructing deponents not to answer questions he, the chairman, does not want answered?

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                • icon
                                                                  nasch (profile), 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:28pm

                                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                  By "assumed the power" do you mean the chairman is doing something not permitted by the rules of Congress, or that he is doing something consistent with those rules as agreed upon by the members of the House? And what is your source?

                                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:45pm

                                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                  You mean the question where they asked the witness to basically identify the whistleblower? The question that, if answered, would potentially have revealed the identity of the whistleblower and opened him up to retaliation, up to and including death threats? Yeah, I'd say he was perfectly within his rights (and the law) to block that.

                                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:58pm

                                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                    Guaranteed anonymity is not a substantive provision on the statute, though the IP (Impeachment Party) is doing its level best pretending that it is.

                                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 4:16pm

                                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                      See: The ICWPA of 1998, Title VII of Public Law No: 105-272.

                                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 5:43pm

                                                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                        Yes, and? Nothing in there says their identity must be made public or that their identity cannot be withheld.

                                                                        See also: Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which provide additional.

                                                                        None of which precludes the various committees from refusing to make the identity of the whistleblower public.

                                                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 5:32pm

                                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                      Guaranteed anonymity is not a substantive provision on the statute

                                                                      There's also nothing that says the identity HAS to be revealed either. If it is deemed keeping his anonymity is the best option to prevent retaliation, then that is perfectly legal. And given Trump's propensity for flouting the law, if he knew who he was he probably would fire him and arrest him on a "trumped" charge.

                                                                      though the IP (Impeachment Party) is doing its level best pretending that it is.

                                                                      I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that party. Can you be more specific?

                                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      Toom1275 (profile), 7 Nov 2019 @ 8:24am

                                                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                      IP (Impeachment Party)

                                                                      AKA the "Justice and Rule of Law" party, as republicans demonstrated unambiguously with their votes last week.

                                                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:40pm

                                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                                And have attended.

                                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2019 @ 3:36pm

                                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                            The branch of government that understands tax schemes is the IRS.

                                                            Are you calling the rest of government stupid? Because it really doesn't take much to understand tax schemes. You either pay your taxes or you don't.

                                                            Don’t any of you find it the least bit curious that someone other than the IRS (or state counterparts) is behind the current claims of evasion?

                                                            Not particularly. Tax fraud is not always uncovered by the IRS, it's also uncovered by other parties who then refer it to the IRS for investigation.

                                                            BTW, the linked article is behind an impenetrable paywall.

                                                            Paywalls are not impenetrable and I am able to see it without paying. I suggest an adblocker or incognito mode.

                                                            Citing something that cannot be accessed reminds me of all the secrecy being practiced by the Democrats in the House.

                                                            Oh yes, all that secrecy that the Republicans were part of from the very beginning and that is now being publicly released.

                                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 5:10pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Merely out of curiosity since you appear to be quite certain of the correctness of your opinion, what specific provision(s) of the Constitution are you referring to in para. number 1?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 6:46pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        This one: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8

                        no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 29 Oct 2019 @ 1:19pm

    Ah if only...

    If only there were laws on the books making witness tampering/intimidation a crime...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kim, 29 Oct 2019 @ 5:50pm

    Leaking

    This kind of proves none of the conspiracy theories could be true -- there are just too many leakers in the world to keep a conspiracy secret!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Agammamon, 29 Oct 2019 @ 7:57pm

    Is the aide his cow? I bet its his cow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bobvious, 30 Oct 2019 @ 6:41am

      Re: Is the aide his cow?

      Derek Harvey Nunes is anagram of sneak Nureyev herd, so there's a very subtle Russian bovine link they are trying to hide in plain sight.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Alexander Hamilton, 30 Oct 2019 @ 2:22am

    Isn’t it ironic that the whole question surrounding the legitimacy of impeachment revolves around the opinions of Hamilton? How could I have foreseen that?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Man of the Seven Mountains, 30 Oct 2019 @ 3:21am

      Re:

      The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.

      That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.

      Trump forever!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 4:59am

        Re: Re:

        You be trippin' yo

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 30 Oct 2019 @ 6:40am

        Re: Re:

        Talk to your doctor about lithium.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re:

        and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.

        The 22nd Amendment says hi and that you're an idiot.

        Trump forever!

        Unless you can convince a super majority of Congress and the Senate to repeal the 22nd Amendment and have found the key to immortality, you're just delusional.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re:

        You're quoting Federalist Paper #69.

        Also from 69:

        The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

        And (emphasis mine):

        The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.

        Lock him up!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2019 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re:

        When is Mexico going to pay for that wall, Hamilton, or are you going to fuck over the military some more?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 30 Oct 2019 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re:

        One, the re-eligible thing is no longer applicable with the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to two terms.

        Two, you might want to read the rest of that paper.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2019 @ 11:30am

    Leaked by Eric Charamella

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.