Yikes
- Thread starter ~IRWT~
- Start date
Witness Tampering
Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings. Laws regarding witness tampering also apply to proceedings before the U.S. Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies.
Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings. Laws regarding witness tampering also apply to proceedings before the U.S. Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies.
ok, nice to know. drinking and driving kills. what other public service announcements do you have.
So he does have a point...someone in the White House (not the Whistleblower because we know he was NOT in the room or on the call) is leaking the contents of a call between the President and a foreign leader. Now Trump is pissed for the wrong reasons but its definitely a problem that someone did that..... certainly if I were a world leader I would be hesitant to be very candid on a secure line with the President.
Imagine if someone had leaked the contents of the Telegrams/dip cables JFK had with Kruschev and the Kremlin as the Cuban Missile crisis was ongoing....that would be a problem.
Imagine if someone had leaked the contents of the Telegrams/dip cables JFK had with Kruschev and the Kremlin as the Cuban Missile crisis was ongoing....that would be a problem.
He's pissed for the right reasons. The people in the know did not report it. A person who took a bunch of passed on information decided that the the President committed a crime. I would venture to bet that a DEA agent could not get a search warrant for a drug dealer using the same criteria.
Whatever the reason can we all agree NOBODY should leak the contents of the Presidents calls with another world leader....to anyone...without the Presidents approval....(the President has the ultimate authority to declassify information....that is decided law so please don't argue with me on that).
No, I don’t agree. Under whistleblower protection, federal employees can alert others that the POTUS is potentially breaking laws, committing crimes, etc. The whistleblower protection laws were established to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, including abuse of power.
In this case, it appears everything was done legally, as stated by the DNI today. Someone (sounds like many) who listened on the call had appropriate security clearance and shared the information with someone else who had appropriate security clearance.
Let’s use your stance and apply it to a hypothetical. Let’s say a member of an intelligence agency heard the POTUS making a plan consisting of treason. Using your approach, he or she should not share that info with anyone.
You really should rethink your stance. I find it very hard to believe you ever worked for the CIA.
You can't unilaterally decide to share something even if someone has the same clearance as you....compartmentation exists within classification. The President's communications with world leaders is PRIVELEGED (please dont argue this with me its established law)......only the President can waive Executive privilege..... again I ask what if someone was leaking the contents of Jfk's diplomatic cables with the Kremlin as the Cuban Missile Crisis was ongoing....
The DNI only discussed the complaint in public after the White House waived Executive privilege. Whomever leaked to the Whistleblower violated rules of Classification, compartmentation, and Executive privilege.
Are so stupid you don't realize this damages ANY future Presidents ability to have secure calls with leaders of foreign countries.
All of this should have remained classified....
Well its equally likely Trump didn't hire the leaker at all.....
Plenty of GS15 Civil Servants work on detail to the White House......
There is no executive privilege here. They discussed that today in the DNI’s testimony. And btw, I’ll argue with you whatever the f’uck I want because you have been wrong all day long.
Can I make another thing clear...while the DNI was very clear he is non-partisan he is an employee of the Executive Branch. Therefore he has to execute the policies of the President. If he doesn't like those policies he can resign..... that's the choice every Executive Branch employee faces. If you work at DOJ, the CIA, DOD...you work for the President.
Let me illustrate. I didn't like Obama, I didn't like his policies yet I executed those policies to the best of my ability. I had to testify to Congress on a particular policy of the Administration. Personally I believe it was (and remains) terrible policy..... but as an Excutive Branch employee testifying to Congress I informed them it was the policy of the Administration (the Obama Administration) and I would execute it to the best of my ability.....
You dont get the option to LEAK classified info because you dont like policy and stay in your job.....you don't like it and cant execute it you resign or shut up....
Let me illustrate. I didn't like Obama, I didn't like his policies yet I executed those policies to the best of my ability. I had to testify to Congress on a particular policy of the Administration. Personally I believe it was (and remains) terrible policy..... but as an Excutive Branch employee testifying to Congress I informed them it was the policy of the Administration (the Obama Administration) and I would execute it to the best of my ability.....
You dont get the option to LEAK classified info because you dont like policy and stay in your job.....you don't like it and cant execute it you resign or shut up....
Matters not that you believe that....the content of calls between ANY President current or future and world leaders needs to remain classified (if necessary) and priveleged (whether classified or not). Even Adam Schiff would agree with that premise....
You’re using the word leak, so that tells me you are not being objective. Any federal employee has the right to whistleblower protections. They have the right to report waste, fraud and abuse.
The AG certainly does not work for the POTUS. The AG works for the American people. I think I’m done with you if you can’t grasp this very basic concept.
You obviously don’t understand privilege. Privilege is not granted to the POTUS to cover up a crime. A one on one conversation between the POTUS and the DNI is privileged. A one on one conversation between the POTUS and the Director of the FBI, when he attempts to use improper influence is not privileged. A conversation between the POTUS and another world leader is not privileged.
Boom. This! So much, fvcking this!
Tim, forgive Cunty, he’s the foremost expert on literally nothing.
I’d agree with you if he didn’t post articles disproving points he was trying to make. He’s good at being wrong. A lot.
The crew here exemplifies the cross section of a nation that rallies around a strongman figure. Be they Italian, German, French, Venezuelan, Kenyan, Pakistani or what is apparently cross-cultural, American. Nothing they won’t excuse if the strongman is out “fighting” for their singular interests. They use the shield of patriotism & power until they are discovered for what they are—a minority of the population simply scared to compete straight up.
The Attorney General works for the President.....suggest you review the history of the creation of the office. The Attorney General can only take direction from the President... Congress for example can NOT direct the Attorney General to open an investigation. The Judiciary Act of 1799 created the position of Attorney General and defined the position as "the Presidents lawyer"..... the statutory duty of the Attorney General is to provide legal guidance to the President of the United States and to defend the United States in suits at the Supreme Court. Title 28 of the US code established the Justice Dept and governs its interactions with the Attorney General. Keep in mind DOJ was created almost 100 years after the establishment of the Attorney General.
Adam Schiff acknowledged today that calls between the President and foreign leaders is priveleged......even the most liberal of liberals isn't going to destroy that principle.
Didnt say he was good at it. Just that all lnowledge he shares is googled. Even the links that he disproves himself.
It is funny when people have to attribute weaknesses to people who disagree with them to justify their own insecurities.
The AG is not the attorney for the President, despite you and the president believing so. As I said, he works for the American people.
The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93), as a one-person part-time position. The Act specified that the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law," with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments."
However, the workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. As the work steadily increased along with the size of the new nation, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.
By 1870, after the end of the Civil War, the increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States had required the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice (ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162), creating "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.
Btw remember in US v Nixon the Supreme Court ruled the famous tapes were actually subject to Executive Privilege....
"the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."
SCOTUS then ordered the tapes turned over based on the public balance test....that while they were priveleged the public benefit to review outweighed the privelege IN THIS CASE..... meaning the specific facts of the Nixon case and not extending to other cases......the balance test (which can only be applied by a Federal Court) would be applied based on the circumstances of each case....
"executive department of the government of the United States"
Who heads the Executive Department of the United States?
Not sure what bubbleboy means but name calling-win! Is that out of the Dave School of Political Discourse? "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it". He puts it in your face and you still swallow. Certainly can with what has been exposed by the level of intellect of his following. 2020.