Pages

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Who needs idiots, when we have a "genius" here...

Our resident self proclaimed 'genius" is at it again, with comments fit for a straight jacket. Yesterday the "genius" proclaimed that illegally leaking damaging information on the President was a matter of Patriotic duty.

In a scope of a few paragraphs the "genius" explains that this all okay because Trump is running an incompetent administration, that he doesn't have the correct political experience, that he says the wrong things to foreign powers, and quite possibly will cause WWIII.

(Another TDS example where the "genius" feels all arguments need to include him telling us what he doesn't like about Donald Trump)

He follows it up with the amazing non-hypothetical hypothetical.
But let's put it this way if Hillary Clinton had won the election and somebody had leaked out major information on who knows Benghazi emails whatever that were not supposed to be released. I don't think you would be protesting this one little bit.
I hate to break it to the "genius" here - but someone did leak out major information on Hillary Clinton's emails. In case the "genius" hasn't noticed, we have THREE investigations going on, more than a year after the fact, including a Special Counsel investigation.

So when someone breaks the law for the means of damaging a Democrat it would be fair to say that the "genius" demands that it is addressed as criminal. Apparently the duty to provide the truth doesn't apply in those cases. Moreover, these investigations are pretty much all this "genius" wants to talk about. What is truly amazing about this is that the "genius" somehow seems to have forgotten about the root cause of those investigations.

But ultimately the "genius" doesn't feel that Donald Trump is entitled to the same legal protections, because the "genius" doesn't think Trump is a very good President. Apparently the "genius" feels that there is a new layer or criminal defense that includes the perpetrator believing the victim is not very good at his job?

I guess you don't need an idiot to come up with idiotic arguments.  Or maybe you do?

88 comments:

Roger Amick said...

childish insults just like the president

opie said...

Our resident self proclaimed 'genius" is at it again, with comments fit for a straight jacket. Yesterday the "genius" proclaimed that illegally leaking damaging information on the President was a matter of Patriotic duty.

My my, you sure are full of yourself today, aren't we, CH. Too bad your arms aren't longer so you can pat yourself on the back...LOLOL. You are reaching the depths of loretta like inanity.... Be proud!!!!!

opie said...

Today's WP Headline

Poll finds Trump’s standing weakened since springtime

The president’s overall approval rating has dropped to 36 percent from 42 percent in April, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. His disapproval has risen five points to 58 percent. Overall, 48 percent of Americans say they “disapprove strongly” of Trump’s performance in office, a level never reached by former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and reached only in the second term of George W. Bush.

The russki's have won!!!! The paralysis and BS in DC has been completely orchestrated by Putin. But, the trumpites only see what they want!!!!

Loretta said...

"childish insults just like the president"

Rich I tell ya.

Commonsense said...

There's quite a bit of irony in that statement.

Commonsense said...

Opie feels good over a poll that was designed to make him feel good.

wphamilton said...

All of that, and you didn't address the difference between whistle-blowing and illegal leaks, which is the only way to refute his arguments.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
opie said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
Opie feels good over a poll that was designed to make him feel good.

Awesome ad hominem, menstra. Between you and loretta, I doubt we can find a whole working brain let alone a synapse. LOL

Commonsense said...

Whistle-blowing is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people believes what Edward Snowden did was patriotic whistle-blowing.

Others believed it was high-treason.

However, there is no doubt he broke both his oath and the law.

Commonsense said...

Awesome ad hominem, menstra.

There was nothing ad hominem there Opie. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition of ad hominem since you are more fond of using it than I.

opie said...

There was nothing ad hominem there Opie.

Try again, numbnutz.......You came after me rather than the data.....classic menstral being inane. LOL

C.H. Truth said...

WP - considering any investigation is designed to draw some sort of legal conclusion, it would "always" be illegal and "never" be considered whistle-blowing to leak information from any investigation.

If there was evidence a crime, the person under investigation would charged. Then any "leaked" information would be possibly tainting the jury pool. If there was no evidence of any crime, then leaking damaging information to the person under investigation would be a violation of that person's constitutional rights.

Lastly, being on the other side of a judgement call on whether or not to charge someone would not justify leaking damaging information... just because "you" thought a suspect was guilty of something. This would be a significant part of the oath you take, and doing so (whether you thought it right or not) would be illegal.


On the flip side, exposing the emails of the DNC and Clinton campaign, does not include any such sensitive type of information. Certainly exposing the fact that CNN provided the Clinton campaign Debate question ahead of time (for her advantage) could be justifiably seen as whistle blowing. Certainly the public knowing that information could be considered more important than Clinton's and CNN's desire to hide that fact.

Either way, the stealing of the emails and releasing them is a crime - punishable by up to five years in jail.

____

I would hope you are not arguing that leaks coming from the FBI in terms of this investigation could be considered whistle-blowing. That simply isn't a valid argument.

C.H. Truth said...

"Despite the legacy media’s wall-to-wall coverage of various Russia-related “scandals” involving President Donald Trump’s associates since April, “the number of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who think that the Russians sought to influence the election, and that the Trump team intentionally helped them,” has plummeted from 18 percent in April to nine percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/months-record-low-trump-troubles-russia-health-care/story?id=48639490

Commonsense said...

Try again, numbnutz.......You came after me rather than the data..

So what was untrue, insulting, about the post?

1. That you felt good about the poll? (You posted it and called it "awesome".

2. Or that you didn't go behind the numbers. It's obvious you didn't.

I did go behind the numbers and I attacked the poll because of the data.

Your turn.

opie said...

So what was untrue, insulting, about the post?

You really are as stupid as ai thought......Except for Loretta's genius....you win hands down; LOOLOLOL!!! The numbers show erosion of trump's base support. But they smartened up, something you are incapable of doing....Mr.2% LOL

I did go behind the numbers and I attacked the poll because of the data.

Sure you did....And BTW... you did no such thing in you post to me...Typical lying republicon. Change the story likeJr. LLOLOLOL

C.H. Truth said...

As the "genius" asks on the other thread:

Truth is if you really think that laws being violated and the nation is being put at risk why is it wrong to do that.?

Because if you are an FBI investigator or part of a special counsel, your duty is to find the actual proof of said law being violated...

Then once the proof is found, you charge the person and take that case to trial.

That is how it works, Roger. That is our law enforcement. Law enforcement investigations take place out of the public eye for a long list of credible and required reasons. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

____

The Constitution does not allow people in law enforcement to simply take matters into their own hands, and selectively leak things to the press in order to "punish" the person they believe may have committed a crime. That is up a prosecutor and ultimately a jury.

Investigators certainly do not have the right to selectively leak information from an investigation to embarrass someone, because you feel they did something wrong, but couldn't come up with evidence to charge them.

And they certainly have no right to selectively leak information in the "MIDDLE" an an investigation... for a variety of logical reasons just to long to list.

Commonsense said...

So what was untrue, insulting, about the post?

You really are as stupid as ai thought......Except for Loretta's genius....you win hands down;


Now that's a non answer answer as I ever heard.

I have another question for you.

Given that Trump won by about 43% of the vote and that Republicans control Congress and the vast majority of state houses, do you really think the country is only 23% Republican.

opie said...

Now that's a non answer answer as I ever heard.

This coming from the guy who just lied about his original poster\??? Please, the righteous indignation is truly amusing..Maybe you deny your post like junior did about the meeting;

Roger Amick said...

It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power. What about the Obama administration’s blatant interference to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest Israeli election? One might even add the work of groups supported by the U.S. during Russian parliamentary elections — the very origin of Vladimir Putin’s deep animus toward Clinton, then secretary of state, whom he accuses of having orchestrated the opposition.

This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for six months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say: Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.

What’s left of your credibility when you make such a casual about-face?

in your case you no longer have any credibility at all.

Roger Amick said...


The Constitution does not allow people in law enforcement to simply take matters into their own hands, and selectively leak things to the press in order to "punish" the person they believe may have committed a crime. That is up a prosecutor and ultimately a jury.


There is a fatal flaw in the logic.

The people believe that data know very well that they could face jail . Freedom of the press is the First Amendment the first statement in the amendment for reason . When Nixon tried to block the Pentagon papers Supreme Court said no the First Amendment rules . Bottom line is perhaps without the freedom of the press the prosecutor and the jury may never even see the case because the cover-up worked perfectly.

Snowden went to jail because he deserved It. Yes some leaks are irresponsible . But that does not mean they should not happen. A free country is a difficult thing because the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and also the freedom of the press . For some reason you don't think that freedom of the speech freedom of the press is necessary to preserve this country you losing it not me. Loyalty to Donald J Trump rules everything. Recent history on this blog makes it very apparent. Dismiss everything and call it fake news if it is not favorable for the President that's not right. I really did not think someone who seeks the truth says he does will buy into the fake news BS to support the president . It makes no logical sense.

Put yourself in the spot, and you have to get a job for the President. If you see his lying to cover up major issues like perhaps collusion would your step forward? Personally I would and face the consequences if necessary.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

Where was your outrage, when Fusion GPS paid a former British spy to to go Russia, talk to Russian nationalists, Russian business people, and even Russian Government officials to gather dirt on Donald Trump?

Why did you not demand that it was a crime when the Dossier created by a combination of British and Russian nationalists and Government official was accepted by the DNC and the Clinton camp?

Why did you not scream bloody murder when a foreign created (fake) dossier on Donald Trump was leaked and circulated in the media?

Either it's legal or it's illegal for foreigners to dig up dirt on an American political candidate?

It cannot be Legal when the dirt is on Trump and those using it are Democrats...

But be "illegal" when simply offered (and refused) by a member of the Trump campaign....

Trump Jr could have accepted the information at face value (as Democrats did with the Dossier) and leaked it "as is" to the Press. But when Trump Jr asked for proof, they had none... so he didn't choose to use any of this information.

______


So as far as credibility in regards to an "about-face" - I think you (and your friends) have a lot of explaining to do.

rrb said...

has plummeted from 18 percent in April to nine percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


plummeting almost as hard as CNN's ratings.

heh.

Loretta said...

LOL, watching Roger and Opie "trying" so darn hard is kind of cute.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the only people saying these things are the voices in your head.

geezus alky, you're flailing around making claims with no basis in fact not only on this blog but in the mainstream.

and snowden didn't go to jail. he's still camped out in russia.



Loretta said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
opie said...

LOL, watching Roger and Opie "trying" so darn hard is kind of cute.

re

Really wouldn't get hard looking at you.. LOL But the lying spawn of trump who tried to get russian help is blessed in your limited mind. No contacts were made by my staff with russians.....a lie proven again and again throughout the trump world. Why do you like the russians, your hubby allegedly was sworn against them being a serviceman.

opie said...

Why did you not demand that it was a crime when the Dossier created by a combination of British and Russian nationalists and Government official was accepted by the DNC and the Clinton camp?


The naive CH resorts to the loretta argument they did it first.....and feigns indignation knowing that the donald solicited russian help through his spawn. IRONICALLY HILARIOUS...

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Goofy.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Goofball.

wphamilton said...

CH says ..."WP - considering any investigation is designed to draw some sort of legal conclusion, it would "always" be illegal and "never" be considered whistle-blowing to leak information from any investigation."

If you truly believe there is no difference, then you are simply mistaken. There are in fact, explicit statutory definitions.


If there was evidence a crime, the person under investigation would charged.

Wrong. The person is charged only if there is sufficient evidence to expect a conviction. Many people confuse "evidence" with "proof", but I frankly didn't expect it from you CH. Evidence is any fact or set of facts, which cumulatively can comprise proof. Or might not comprise proof.


Then any "leaked" information would be possibly tainting the jury pool.

Again, wrong. Any type of information may be leaked. It might even be embarrassing. But unless the information pertains specifically to the investigation or events surrounding the investigation or crime, it will not be potentially tainting the jury pool.

Whistle blowing information is yet another difference, and it is certainly not "in the eye of the beholder" as another person has stated here.

If there was no evidence of any crime, then leaking damaging information to the person under investigation would be a violation of that person's constitutional rights.

This is a fictional standard, which you will not find in any case law nor statute.

Commonsense said...

"Opie feels good over a poll that was designed to make him feel good."
____________

Someone should tell Commensa that polls are taken, not designed.

_______________

Poll finds Trump standing weakened since springtime
12 hrs ago

President Trump’s standing with the American people has deteriorated since the spring, buffeted by perceptions of a decline in U.S. leadership abroad, a stalled presidential agenda at home and an unpopular Republican health-care bill, according to Post-ABC polling.

Overall, 48 percent say they “disapprove strongly” of Trump’s performance in office, a level never reached by former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and reached only in the second term of George W. Bush

48% say they do not trust the President "at all"... His standing is a mirror opposite of Obama and Bush at this point in their first terms. Each held a 59 percent job approval rating in Post-ABC polling.

opie said...

`Loretta said...

Goofball.

Powerful posts there Loretta.....Don't you get tired of being a horses ass?????? Cue the same ol' forgot post, it is all you ever do.

C.H. Truth said...

WP

So if your standard is "case law or statue"

Show me case law or statue that allows an FBI investigator or other FBI employee working an ongoing investigation to leak information about that investigation to the press.

Show me any case law or statue that allows this behavior to be legally deemed to be "whistle-blowing"?

I think you will find that 100% of the case law and 100% of the statutes on this subject will back the concept that leaking information to the Press on an ongoing investigation is always considered illegal.

opie said...

buffeted by perceptions of a decline in U.S. leadership abroad,

Yep...donnie is leading with his triple chin......












i













Roger Amick said...

There you go again. I did not express outrage at any of those things. Do I agree with them? no but they have the damn right and sometimes they have the obligation to do it to protect the country not the fucking President.

Where was your outrage, when Fusion GPS paid a former British spy to to go Russia, talk to Russian nationalists, Russian business people, and even Russian Government officials to gather dirt on Donald Trump? There is no proof that Hillary Clinton ordered that.

Why did you not demand that it was a crime when the Dossier created by a combination of British and Russian nationalists and Government official was accepted by the DNC and the Clinton camp?

Why did you not scream bloody murder when a foreign created (fake) dossier on Donald Trump was leaked and circulated in the media?

I did not express damn thing on it. And again the fatal flaw is you're protecting the president no matter what he says that is not right. The history of his lies on this would fill the page. You know that you don't do that because he doesn't lie in your mind, he's perfect.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Goofball

C.H. Truth said...

Do I agree with them? no but they have the damn right and sometimes they have the obligation to do it to protect the country not the fucking President.

So once again, Roger...

You demand that foreigners such as Brits/Russians are actually "obligated" to collect "fake" information on the candidate Donald Trump and release it to campaigns, Politicians, and the media (because you don't like him).

But if those same foreigners simply claim to have information on Hillary Clinton and try to release that information to campaigns, that is "treason".


Does your TDS induced hypocrisy have any limits, Roger?


There is no proof that Hillary Clinton ordered that.

What, and you have some proof that Trump Jr ordered the Russian lawyer to gather information?

Again Roger - USE YOUR BRAIN - The Clinton campaign received information from foreigners (including Russians) and used it against Trump. You find that perfectly acceptable.

The Trump campaign was offered information on the DNC and Clinton, and refused to use it. You find this to be appalling.

Can you explain your logic here why the former was acceptable, while the latter was criminal?

Roger Amick said...

Mrs. Alzheimer's remain quiet please. You never have anything of substance to contribute except some stupid insults.LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL

Our post expresses the hope of nobody just posts insults. That is all you have ever done.

Loretta said...

"You know that you don't do that because he doesn't lie in your mind, he's perfect."

Really, quit while you're behind.

You ALWAYS let your emotions cloud rational thought.

ALWAYS.

Loretta said...

Mind your own business.

opie said...

What, and you have some proof that Trump Jr ordered the Russian lawyer to gather information?


NAH...he just got trolled by putin....took the bait, said he got nothing, but the russians got all the proof they needed to release the purloined dnc e-mails and pedesta junk.... mono such thing as a coincidence when it comes to putin helping trump....

GO AWAY LORETTA!!!!!!!

Roger Amick said...

The truth is I was not aware of that.

I'm not perfect I may have accepted it. But if I had in retrospect I would've been wrong and I know that. And you continued to claim that no information from the Russians use against Clinton, there is no proof either way. Investigation continues you say it's over it's not.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Fatty

C.H. Truth said...

And you continued to claim that no information from the Russians use against Clinton, there is no proof either way.

We all know for a fact that the Russia/Trump Dossier was information that came specifically from paid foreign agents doing opposition research using Russian contacts (at least claiming some to be Government officials). We know for a fact that this information was passed to members of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, Politicians, the FBI as well as the press. We also know that this Dossier was used against Trump during the campaign.

From what we can gather regarding the Trump Jr meeting was that an unpaid foreign attorney who apparently claimed she had opposition dirt, offered it to three members of the Trump campaign, which they refused to use, refused to pass along, or refused to leak to the Press. It wasn't credible, and there is no evidence that this information ever found it's way into the campaign.


How you view the former as perfectly legal.
But the latter as an act of treason....

Is mindboggling.

Loretta said...

Turley and Alan Dershowitz both say the same damn thing.

Stupid, but not illegal.

Junior doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

C.H. Truth said...

I would just offer that people need to pick a side. Enough with the hypocrisy and nitpicking semantic differences or making apples to oranges arguments.

One cannot complain about foreign influence on the election when it harmed Hillary Clinton, and then demand that foreign influence on the election is justified when it harms Donald Trump.

C.H. Truth said...

Junior doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

He's actually quite bright as quite obviously is his sister. Brother Eric, maybe not to much.

But this is part of the strategy here. The left hyperventilates and demands that a meeting where three Trump campaign members basically refused to accept and use damaging information on the DNC and Clinton because they didn't deem it credible is treason...

and the elicitied response is that it wasn't illegal, that it was just a mistake, or just stupid, or whatever. Either way, it works to diminish the reputation of Trump Jr almost entirely because of the over the top response from the left.

Should he have trusted a British publicist for a Russian pop singer to actually have some sort of insider information? Probably not, but his responses were someone cynical ("if it is what you say") and non-committal. He simply agreed to hear someone out. Perhaps had there been real information regarding the DNC and Clinton campaign accepting Russian donations, then he probably would have met with the campaign legal team and probably turned the information over to authorities.

But in this case, it appeared to be a bait and switch. She has other intentions, and no real information. Why contact any authorities over something that wasn't actually "there".

At the end of the day, it was a waste of 20 minutes, but probably worth the risk to at least hear someone out. I would have seen Trump Jr as Stupid if he had chosen to try to do something with the information.

wphamilton said...


Show me case law or statue that allows an FBI investigator or other FBI employee working an ongoing investigation to leak information about that investigation to the press.


Since that's not illegal, why would there be any case law regarding it?

The FBI is traditionally closed-lipped about ongoing investigations, but there is no shortage of releases of information. FBI Randomly Releases Trump
Real Estate Investigation Records From The 1970s
The writer speculates that it has something to do with Trump's feuding with investigatory agencies, but this is not illegal. Not that uncommon. There is no reason for any statute to "allow" it, because it isn't prohibited.

You're the guy making claims that it's illegal to "leak" ANY information in an investigation. You claim that ANY information might taint a jury. You claim that there is no legal difference between whistle-blowing and illegal leaks in this context. It is up to you to find some case law or statute to support these notions - you cannot demand that someone else prove the negative.

Look on the bright side: if you are right, and it really IS as you say, then there will surely be cases proving it. Some judge somewhere, in all the thousands and thousands of criminal investigations and prosecutions, will have said that under such and such statutes, releasing ANY information taints the jury or violates the defendant's civil rights. As are your claims. But it's not the case, and you will find that nowhere, from any court nor any statute.

Commonsense said...

Someone should tell Commensa that polls are taken, not designed.

Someone should tell the pederast that polls are indeed designed from the questions they asked to the sampling methodology that is used.

In fact there is a whole profession devoted to doing just that.

Also that it's not nice to impersonate another user.

Commonsense said...

Since that's not illegal, why would there be any case law regarding it?

Yeah, it's illegal:

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

opie said...

Interesting...SCOTUS asks for HI to respond to the motion..... If I recall the histrionics how Hi stepped out of line by questioning the Scotus decision. Gee, seems like the scotus is going to review the bad Hi ruling that our lawyers here said was BS. WOW!!!!

U.S.
Supreme Court gives Hawaii until Tuesday to answer Trump travel ban motion
Reuters Sat, Jul 15 12:26 PM PDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the State of Hawaii to respond by Tuesday at noon to President Donald Trump's motion to block a judge's ruling that prevented his travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, the court's public information office said on Saturday.

In a court filing on Friday, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday's decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The latest round in the fight over Trump's March 6 executive order, which he says is needed to prevent terrorism attacks, began when the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans, which had been blocked by lower courts.


For more news videos visit Yahoo View, available on iOS and Android.

The Supreme Court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred. The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

opie said...

. As are your claims. But it's not the case, and you will find that nowhere, from any court nor any statute.

Straight set victory, WP...CH didn't even win a single game.....

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

The Trump administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal rather than letting it go through the regular appellate process should tell you something about how they will rule.

C.H. Truth said...

Well WP,

Alan Dershowitz and other disagree with your assessment that it's perfectly legal for employees working for the FBI or Special Counsel investigations to leak information from that investigation to the media.

Dershowitz has called such leaks "a clear crime".

Either way, you have not furthered your argument regarding how leaks from an FBI or Special Counsel investigation could possibly be considered to be whistle-blowing.

Unless of course, the FBI or Special Counsel itself was engaged in some sort of unethical or illegal behavior within the investigation and the employee was whistle-blowing on that behavior.

But by the nature of the beast, the investigation itself is a consideration as to whether the actions of the whoever thy are investigating meet the criteria for criminal charges. It cannot be considered whistle-blowing to divulge information that would otherwise be used to charge someone with a crime.

John Q. Public said...

Donald Trump:
Your behavior is beyond the pale. Your pathological lies make me sick. You’re an international DISGRACE.

But I’m onto you: While you’re stumbling around the Oval Office with the working knowledge of a 5th grader, your Republican billionaire Cabinet is wreaking unprecedented havoc on our Democracy.

You might hold the most powerful office in the world, but let me make myself clear: I’m not afraid of you. I’m working to EXPOSE you for who you are.

I’m making a public donation today to help End Citizens United take down your Presidency and expose the TRUTH about your corrupt administration:

I’m committed to countering your toxic agenda at every step.

When you try to shovel a MASSIVE tax cut to Big Pharma donors? I’ll be there.

When you support ELIMINATING contribution limits to political candidates? I’ll be there.

When you try to pull the wool over our eyes and LIE about your ties to Russia? I’ll be there.

Donald Trump, you don’t have a basic understanding of our Democracy. So I’ll make it easy for you:

The People should decide our elected officials, not corporations, not special interests and NOT foreign countries.

I hereby commit to do everything in my power to stop you from causing ANY more harm to our country.

--John Q. Public

Playbook said...

Trump Twitter Priorities

Playbook: “Since Friday night, the president of the United States has tweeted five times about the U.S. Women’s Open at a golf club that bears his name.***

“Things the president has not tweeted about in the last few days: Wishing John McCain well after he announced he’d have surgery for a blood clot in his eye. Urging senators to raise the debt ceiling or pass the health care bill. Urging House Republicans to pass the air-traffic control overhaul bill, which is in big trouble.”
_________________
***THE BIGGEST NARCISSIST THE OVAL OFFICE HAS EVER CONTAINED.

opie said...

Well CH, WP soundly kicked your white ass....Maybe dershowitz can provide a cite which proves his AND YOUR point.....LOL

James said...

Well, Ch, Wp asked you to provide examples of cases wherein courts have ruled as you maintain. Where are they?

Commonsense said...

Well James, you got it ass backwards it was CH who ask:

Show me case law or statue that allows an FBI investigator or other FBI employee working an ongoing investigation to leak information about that investigation to the press.

To which WP replied:

Since that's not illegal, why would there be any case law regarding it?

Don't you feel like an ass?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell?

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell?

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Goofball.

Loretta said...

"Don't you feel like an ass?"

That would require integrity.

C.H. Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
C.H. Truth said...

Hey Opie -

It's WP's assertion that FBI agents can somehow be deemed to be "whistle blowers" in terms of leaking information from Investigations. Of course, there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for this argument... and the whistle blower term is not a layman's subjective term (but actually a legal one).

When asked to provide evidence that anyone has ever used the "whistle blower" defense in this manner, he changed the subject, claiming that people like Dershowitz and others are basically wrong to claim leaking FBI information is wrong or illegal to begin with.

It wouldn't surprise me that you see this argument as valid. Your trust in the experts doesn't go past your trust in global warming scientists who you find infallible even when they move into areas outside their expertise by programming computer models with statistical data that ultimately spit out incorrect data.

wphamilton said...

Hey Opie -

It's WP's assertion that FBI agents can somehow be deemed to be "whistle blowers" in terms of leaking information from Investigations


On final point which you've gotten wrong.

FBI agents may legally release information regarding investigations, whether or not such information is "whistle-blowing".

C.H. Truth said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
All of that, and you didn't address the difference between whistle-blowing and illegal leaks, which is the only way to refute his arguments.

wphamilton said...

But he wasn't talking about ONLY FBI leaks regarding information pertinent to ongoing FBI investigations. You excoriated him for defending Government employees "leaking damaging information". Even in an investigation, there are leaks which may be damaging, leaks which are about whistle-blowing over the government, leaks which may be informative, and leaks which may be classified and thus illegal, and yet other leaks which may be legal but violate policy.

You excoriated "the genius" for wanting to talk about "only" the investigation, yet here you are not only insisting on examining "only" the investigation, but only specific aspects of the investigation.

If you want to refute arguments of "the genius", you first of all need to differentiate whistle blowing, and the public's right to know that information, or informative, as distinct from leaks which damage the investigation, or which are relevant but not fully substantiated, or which might otherwise be illegal.

Roger Amick said...

Our resident self proclaimed 'genius" is at it again, with comments fit for a straight jacket. Yesterday the "genius" proclaimed that illegally leaking damaging information on the President was a matter of Patriotic duty.

As usual you take it incorrectly. If it is political and illegal yes that's true I supported . But if national security is involved, that's a crime that should be thrown in jail for life. And it may or may not be illegal as you claim wp showed you that it was not.

I'm not talking about cheap politics I'm talking about reality and endangering the country and threatening our freedoms and letting a foreign country intervene in our election system and you don't care.

Krauthammer says it perfectly.

It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power. What about the Obama administration’s blatant interference to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest Israeli election? One might even add the work of groups supported by the U.S. during Russian parliamentary elections — the very origin of Vladimir Putin’s deep animus toward Clinton, then secretary of state, whom he accuses of having orchestrated the opposition.

This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for six months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say: Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.

What’s left of your credibility when you make such a casual about-face? you don't have 1 ounce of credibility anymore, none you're just a follower. you no longer have any objectivity at all. You would be perfect in the White House pressroom lying through your teeth and liking it.

Second, no, not everyone does it. It’s one thing to be open to opposition research dug up in Indiana. But not dirt from Russia, a hostile foreign power that has repeatedly invaded its neighbors (Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine), that buzzes our planes and ships in international waters, that opposes our every move and objective around the globe. Just last week the Kremlin killed additional U.N. sanctions we were looking to impose on North Korea for its ICBM test.

There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor.

I leave it to the lawyers to adjudicate the legalities of unconsummated collusion. But you don’t need a lawyer to see that the Trump defense — collusion as a desperate Democratic fiction designed to explain away a lost election — is now officially dead.

Roger Amick said...

Our host had a very bad day. The "genius", WP and Opie ripped him to shreds.

C.H. Truth said...

WP -

90% of the leaks are coming from the investigation. By nature, the entire concept of an investigation is to have professionals investigate and then draw conclusions from the facts.

Whistle-blowing in that situation would only apply to someone who decides to report unethical or illegal behavior within the investigation itself. In other words, if the Special Counsel itself was engaged with unethical or illegal behavior, then reporting that would be whistle-blowing. Leaking information from an investigation about the person you are investigating is not whistle-blowing. There is no legal protection for that. You know that as well as I know that.

Democrats called for a special counsel. They got a special counsel. Let the special counsel do their job and draw their conclusions in private as the protocol, regulations, and laws provide. That was the one big drawback of a special counsel vs another larger "independent" congressional probe. The opportunity to grandstand for political purposes is simply not there. Live with it. If there is evidence of criminal behavior, then that will come out. If not, then move on.

Bottom line:

I will continue to take issue with supposed professionals who feel the need to leak information that is both impossible to verify, impossible to put within the context of the investigation, and is clearly designed to harm the person they are investigating.

Whether legal experts like Dershowitz are correct, or legal experts like you and Roger are correct... is really irrelevant to the broader issue of hypocrisy.

We are still talking about the (Russian) hacking of Clinton's emails because when it comes to damaging information about Clinton, the left and the media (and apparently you) feel that the real issue was how they were obtained. There seems to be almost no concern with what was revealed, as if that doesn't matter. In many ways, people like you apparently see Clinton as some sort of victim (because her dishonest tactics and other embarrassing actions were exposed).

As it pertains to the explosion of leaks (illegal by most accounts) that has been damaging Trump, there seems to be no concern with where that information is coming from. 95% of the focus is put on what is being leaked, with the other 5% being people like you defending the actions of the leakers... by calling it "whistle-blowing" when the term couldn't be any further from the reality.

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
WP -

90% of the leaks are coming from the investigation.

LOL...another made up fact proffered by our esteemed genius.

opie said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Hey Opie -

It's WP's assertion that FBI agents can somehow be deemed to be "whistle blowers" in terms of leaking information from Investigations

HEY CH.....What a crock of crap....Keep believing in your superior intellect, you are the only one who does.

wphamilton said...

Whistle-blowing in that situation would only apply to someone who decides to report unethical or illegal behavior within the investigation itself.

Such as political leaders trying to squelch the investigations? I'm glad that you finally acknowledge that there is a distinction.

C.H. Truth said...

Such as political leaders trying to squelch the investigations?

As you should know, according to most "whistle-blower" protections, the concept is that you take your evidence of wrong doing to the appropriate authorities, whether that be someone higher up within your own company/organization... or whether that be outside law enforcement. For no other reason, than to clarify that what you believe (or thought you believed) to be accurately unethical or immoral. In the case of an FBI agent, or FBI employee (including a director) there is arguably a legal obligation to report such behavior to your superior.

You are then allowed protection under the whistle-blower laws. In that you cannot be terminated or otherwise disciplined simply because you reported that behavior.

But I think it would be matter of broad interpretation to argue that someone else (with limited information and limited context of that information) would be protected if they leaked that information to the press - without first going through some chain of command. Leaking to the media is generally considered sort of a last resort (not first action). Especially if that information includes anything sensitive or classified and you cannot actually "prove" that anything done was illegal (or otherwise not being properly investigated by someone else).


But in all seriousness here WP... this isn't really a "legal" argument here that you are making. It's really red herring (as if all of the leaks have to do with one issue) and a semantic one. You simply want to "lump" everything that is being leaked into "whistle-blower" status because (like Roger) you believe that Trump and his administration is not entitled to the same protections of investigative protocol and secrecy as other people would be provided.

You know that the leaks are technically wrong and probably illegal, but you support them non-the-less because "you" feel the country has the right to be informed on what is happening behind the closed doors of the investigation. More to the point, it really doesn't matter to you if the information is accurate, valid, in context, or anything else. As long as it's information, you want it tossed out for public consumption.



opie said...


As you should know, according to most "whistle-blower"

Stop it CH. You lost and all you are doing is rationalizing to yourself how great you are. Well, between you, me, WP and a lamp post, It aint' going to sway anyone here. LOL

Commonsense said...

Yes, Opie facts are terrible things to your hate-filled fantasies.

C.H. Truth said...

Wonderful insightful commentary, Opie... Glad you could share.

opie said...

C.H. Truth said...
Wonderful insightful commentary, Opie.

Glad you enjoyed it. At least I can express my BS in 2 lines, you take forever....LOL Truth hurts don't it!!!

Commonsense said...

At least I can express my BS in 2 lines, you take forever..

And here I thought it was that you couldn't cogitate a full sentence in your head.

opie said...

And here I thought it was that you couldn't cogitate a full sentence in your head.

More stupidity from the peanut gallery.. Like loretta, you have nothing to add to anything!!!! Go beat a lesbian you will feel better

Commonsense said...

Is that how you feel better Opie? Beating up on lesbians?

Is that some weird Oedipus complex going on there?

I think you should get some help.

Right now.

opie said...

ommonsense said...
Is that how you feel better Opie?

Struck a nerve cultist??? You are the one who think they are not equals to your holy tenet, not me. Oedipus....LOLOL>...you really are a strange one, menstral and suggest you look up what that means.. Thinking is not in your genes.

Commonsense said...

Struck a nerve cultist???

Seems I did. With you. I didn't know till now your uncivil behavior toward Ette was just misdirected rage at your mother.

opie said...

I didn't know till now your uncivil behavior toward Ette was just misdirected rage at your mother.

Sure asshole. Now our GED cultist is a psychologist with homosexual tendencies. Yep, you sure got that one Mr .2% Rage a ette is no different than your Bullshit daily. She is a worthless POS with no moral compass, just like you. Idiot