- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I think the whistleblower followed the law and did everything the right way..
Posted on 9/26/19 at 8:57 am
Posted on 9/26/19 at 8:57 am
the whistleblower just happens to be retarded, and can't help what he did, because he's retarded. He followed the rules though.
Definitely unprecedented.
Definitely unprecedented.
This post was edited on 9/26/19 at 8:59 am
8
Posted on 9/26/19 at 8:59 am to auggie
Yes, it’s all BS, but followed Protocol
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:03 am to auggie
uh, he blew the whistle on something he admitted he wasn't a first party to. And was deemed to be politically motivated when submitting the complaint
None of which is part of the protections of the whistleblower statute
None of which is part of the protections of the whistleblower statute
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:03 am to auggie
you are 100% wrong
Brit Hume just retweeted this from a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders (Fred Freitz is his name)
"This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.
t appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?
It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?
Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.
This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials."
Brit Hume just retweeted this from a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders (Fred Freitz is his name)
"This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.
t appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?
It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?
Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.
This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials."
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:03 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
Yes, it’s all BS, but followed Protocol
exactly what Schiff is trying to focus on, because he knows that dem voters don't understand any of this.
He just wants McGuire say that rules were followed.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:06 am to Magician2
sorry man...You are right, I'm just watching this crap and commenting on the circles that they are talking in. 
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:17 am to RobbBobb
quote:
he blew the whistle on something he admitted he wasn't a first party to
Yeah, this is the part I'm having trouble with as to the integrity of this whistleblower. Does it make his blowing not true? Who knows but it does make one question the integrity of his blow.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:27 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Yeah, this is the part I'm having trouble with as to the integrity of this whistleblower. Does it make his blowing not true? Who knows but it does make one question the integrity of his blow.
You have a 3rd person hearsay report vs the actual transcript, confirmation from both parties on the phone call, and the simple fact that what was discussed was nothing like what is being accused or reported.
If you read the transcript you know the report is false. Doesn't mean the whistleblower knew it was false. But the facts clearly don't support him.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:39 am to auggie
quote:
I think
Nope
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:41 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Does it make his blowing not true? Who knows but it does make one question the integrity of his blow.
I guess we now know where Toddy's been.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:44 am to auggie
quote:
the whistleblower just happens to be retarded, and can't help what he or she did, because he's or she's retarded. He or she followed the rules though.
Definitely unprecedented.
I can't wait for msm to go crazy about how the let it be known that its male. Bunch of sjws not understanding proper English. Honestly the whole he/she garbage needs to come to an end one day....if I had my way. Proper English needs to be brought back...better than high rise jean shorts.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:49 am to auggie
Please understand this.
He/she isn't a whistleblower as they do not have first hand knowledge of the call and shouldn't be protected under the whistleblower law.
He/she isn't a whistleblower as they do not have first hand knowledge of the call and shouldn't be protected under the whistleblower law.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:50 am to KANDUUU
quote:
I can't wait for msm to go crazy about how the let it be known that its male. Bunch of sjws not understanding proper English. Honestly the whole he/she garbage needs to come to an end one day....if I had my way. Proper English needs to be brought back...better than high rise jean shorts.
Biggest problem in our country is PC speech.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:52 am to Magician2
Smelling as though there is a set up and Trump & Co may have walked a fine line near it. I would fire all of the "transcriptionists" by 3pm, confiscate any codes they may have and have lawyers file suit against them in Federal Court
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:53 am to auggie
Well at least we’re past the “Trump set the trap” 4D chess talking points. (One poster previously said that Trump orchestrated all of it.)
But by attacking the whistleblower, the board is acknowledging that Trump is not driving the narrative like a puppet master.
But by attacking the whistleblower, the board is acknowledging that Trump is not driving the narrative like a puppet master.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:54 am to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:Yuge win for the Aggie!
But by attacking the whistleblower, the board is acknowledging that Trump is not driving the narrative like a puppet master.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 9:54 am to auggie
It was manufactured. He is complicit in lying because of the protection of WB, which they don’t really meet the criteria for.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 10:00 am to MrLarson
quote:
Please understand this. He/she isn't a whistleblower as they do not have first hand knowledge of the call and shouldn't be protected under the whistleblower law.
Understand this : That is the issue that is being buried by this whole proceeding. That is the whole purpose of this entire thing.
Bury the fact that the whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge of anything, but make everyone say that he took the correct staircase and walked through the correct door, because that's all that dem voters will focus on. The rest doesn't matter.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 10:11 am to auggie
quote:
Bury the fact that the whistleblower didn't have first hand knowledge of anything
He opened the complaint with this
Posted on 9/26/19 at 10:18 am to bmy
quote:
He opened the complaint with this
Yeah, it seems that the only reason it was even allowed in the first place, was to avoid the appearance of squashing information, just because it happens to come from the opposing party, instead of just telling the person that he's retarded and laughing at him in his face.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News