Remember when Obama asked Ukraine to investigate a guy with Trump's campaign? And Paul Manafort is doing time because of that investigation. Why are Hunter Biden's crimes untouchable?

---

Remember when Obama asked Ukraine to investigate a guy with Trump's campaign?  And Paul Manafort is doing time because of that investigation.  Why are Hunter Biden's crimes untouchable?

Silly boy, investigations r for republicans!!!

---

Remember when Obama asked Ukraine to investigate a guy with Trump's campaign?  And Paul Manafort is doing time because of that investigation.  Why are Hunter Biden's crimes untouchable?

1) Manafort was already under investigation in both countries before he attached himself to the Trump campaign. The guy was evading taxes starting before Trump became a candidate.

2) as I've been saying, investigating Hunter Biden is in-bounds, but, what law did he break, and in which country? 

Joe had the power to corruptly send Hunter money.  Maybe he did so.  If so, it was an abuse of his power.  The remedy for abuse of power is removal from office.  Joe is out of office so it's moot.

As for Hunter, it probably wouldn't have been illegal in either country for him to accept the board position or the money.  

I do think the public needs to know about serious allegations of corruption against Joe Biden. Trump could have used campaign funds to hire an investigative journalist or two and get it out there. Nothing would have been unethical about that.

Don't try to strong arm the new president of the Ukraine into doing that, though.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Remember when Obama asked Ukraine to investigate a guy with Trump's campaign?  And Paul Manafort is doing time because of that investigation.  Why are Hunter Biden's crimes untouchable?

1) Manafort was already under investigation in both countries before he attached himself to the Trump campaign. The guy was evading taxes starting before Trump became a candidate.

2) as I've been saying, investigating Hunter Biden is in-bounds, but, what law did he break, and in which country? 

Joe had the power to corruptly send Hunter money.  Maybe he did so.  If so, it was an abuse of his power.  The remedy for abuse of power is removal from office.  Joe is out of office so it's moot.

As for Hunter, it probably wouldn't have been illegal in either country for him to accept the board position or the money.  

I do think the public needs to know about serious allegations of corruption against Joe Biden. Trump could have used campaign funds to hire an investigative journalist or two and get it out there. Nothing would have been unethical about that.

Don't try to strong arm the new president of the Ukraine into doing that, though.

Why do u feel the compulsive need to lie?  I mean one or two times is forgivable but this is getting quite silly.  

The new president shares trumps enthiasm about drainibg the swamp.  Just read the texts.  A.) Reports are coming out now that he didnt even know about the hold on the aud b.) He wants to get to the bottom of the sllegations just like everyone.

As for manafort, it had slready been determined that his case lacked evidence, then are Ukrainian lawmaker connected to the Clinton campaign illegally leaked, already convicted in Ukraine, stories suggesting a ledger of payments that still has not been verified. It was then reopened under the auspices of the special counsel investigation using a convoluted legal theory that by not registering as a foreign agent that would make all monetary gains associated with his business dealings some form of illicit profit. Normally when someone fails to register as a foreign agent they're giving notice and allowed to make the proper registration. This was a gross over step as a pretext for putting a campaign manager for the president of the United States in solitary confinement to try and prompt him to make up stories about the sitting president of the United States.

As for Hunter Biden I've said before and I will continue to say if he is the recipient of illicit payments to influence the office of the Vice President of the United States he is a material accomplice to fraud and potentially treason. In the case of Joe Biden it's not only removal from office if it's demonstrated that someone committed a crime in this case the misappropriation fraud relating to billions of dollars and United States Aid and extortion of a foreign government. In that case Not only would you be removed from office but you would also face criminal prosecution and the public has a right to know that you betrayed the public trust in violation of your oath of office.

---

Wasn't Manafort a partner with Clinton Crony and pizza enthusiast Tony Podesta in the Ukraine dealings? But Podesta was given immunity to testify against Manafort.

---

Hot news out that the rules for Whistleblowers were changed, in secret, to allow second hand information that previously would not be allowed and to permit the second hand, hearsay, gossip-based complaint to bypass the Attorney General and go directly to Congress. This unusual change occurred in August, conveniently the same week that the Democrats' conjured complaint was filed.

I'm sure it's all on the up and up though.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hot news out that the rules for Whistleblowers were changed, in secret, to allow second hand information that previously would not be allowed and to permit the  second hand, hearsay, gossip-based complaint to bypass the Attorney General and go directly to Congress. This unusual change occurred in August, conveniently the same week that the Democrats'  conjured complaint was filed.

I'm sure it's all on the up and up though.

It gets better.  The complaint was obviously written by a skilled lawyer, which the leakers (he doesnt qualify as a whistleblower under the relevant statute) reportedly not.  That gets into a whole other layer of potential conspiracy, coordination, misshandling of classified information etc.  

Also the legal firm currently representing the whistleblower loterally advertises for and pays for leaks ftom this white house.

---

Hot news out that the rules for Whistleblowers were changed, in secret, to allow second hand information that previously would not be allowed and to permit the  second hand, hearsay, gossip-based complaint to bypass the Attorney General and go directly to Congress. This unusual change occurred in August, conveniently the same week that the Democrats'  conjured complaint was filed.

I'm sure it's all on the up and up though.

It gets better.  The complaint was obviously written by a skilled lawyer, which the leakers (he doesnt qualify as a whistleblower under the relevant statute) reportedly not.  That gets into a whole other layer of potential conspiracy, coordination, misshandling of classified information etc.  

Also the legal firm currently representing the whistleblower loterally advertises for and pays for leaks ftom this white house.

I'm not a skilled lawyer, but I could have penned that doc. This suggests that only lawyers can write reports. 90% of CIA employees have to write technical reports just like this all the time. 

Flip side: Trump's 47 rage-tweets yesterday came across like a child wrote them. Is Barron tweeting from the Oval Office? Ghostwriting conspiracies can go both ways.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

It gets better.  The complaint was obviously written by a skilled lawyer, which the leakers (he doesnt qualify as a whistleblower under the relevant statute) reportedly not.  That gets into a whole other layer of potential conspiracy, coordination, misshandling of classified information etc.  

Also the legal firm currently representing the whistleblower loterally advertises for and pays for leaks ftom this white house.

I'm not a skilled lawyer, but I could have penned that doc. This suggests that only lawyers can write reports. 90% of CIA employees have to write technical reports just like this all the time. 

Flip side: Trump's 47 rage-tweets yesterday came across like a child wrote them. Is Barron tweeting from the Oval Office? Ghostwriting conspiracies can go both ways.

Yeh, right.  

Theres a difference between technical detailed reporting and using certain language sentence structure staturory citation etc. That are common to lawyers.  

Also the man used a twitter account to pull off the most economical electoral victory in the television era.

---

I'm not a skilled lawyer, but I could have penned that doc. This suggests that only lawyers can write reports. 90% of CIA employees have to write technical reports just like this all the time. 

Flip side: Trump's 47 rage-tweets yesterday came across like a child wrote them. Is Barron tweeting from the Oval Office? Ghostwriting conspiracies can go both ways.

Yeh, right.  

Theres a difference between technical detailed reporting and using certain language sentence structure staturory citation etc. That are common to lawyers.  

Also the man used a twitter account to pull off the most economical electoral victory in the television era.

Come on dude, you have to think outside of the echo chamber or we won't get anywhere as a society. I'm very practical when it comes to politics, so I don't take unfortunate, conspiracy-theory responses like yours seriously. 

You can be a skilled writer and NOT be an attorney. Just like you can be president despite tweeting like a child denied his ice-cream. I'm not a lawyer, I have written documents just like this report.

*edit: obviously, I'm not the whistleblower....or even the #FakeWhistleblower

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

It gets better.  The complaint was obviously written by a skilled lawyer, which the leakers (he doesnt qualify as a whistleblower under the relevant statute) reportedly not.  That gets into a whole other layer of potential conspiracy, coordination, misshandling of classified information etc.  

Also the legal firm currently representing the whistleblower loterally advertises for and pays for leaks ftom this white house.

I'm not a skilled lawyer, but I could have penned that doc. This suggests that only lawyers can write reports. 90% of CIA employees have to write technical reports just like this all the time. 

Flip side: Trump's 47 rage-tweets yesterday came across like a child wrote them. Is Barron tweeting from the Oval Office? Ghostwriting conspiracies can go both ways.

As someone that has 15 years in Intel and with Yankee White, I call your BS. No, 90% don't write reports like this. They have a team of admins that do it.

This whole things is dirty. There are a few concerns here...

#1  The formatting was spot on for an official "report." A whistleblower submission is not formatted and in fact, is pretty generic. Can be a note, phone call, face to face, electronic submission, etc.
#2  The information utilized was pretty thorough for being a third party to that info. Must have took great notes. I'm sure we've all played the telephone game and know information gets pretty twisted in just one pass through let alone three.
#3  Speaking of notes, the report and attachments contained classified info. That means, by law, the report must be created on a classified system. Also, all notes utilized for that writing are also classified even in draft form. This report took multiple days, maybe weeks. Where was the classified material stored? Multiple people broke laws here. If written on a classified system, see #4.
#4  Timeline shows Congress had been aware well before we were. Did the whistleblower and lawyers get help in formulating this complaint? If you understand anything about how the report was formatted, the answer is yes. Typically this style of report is written by the IG and team who took the complaint. We know this isn't the case here because he/she went hands-off after realizing it wasn't their matter of concern.

---

I'm not a skilled lawyer, but I could have penned that doc. This suggests that only lawyers can write reports. 90% of CIA employees have to write technical reports just like this all the time. 

Flip side: Trump's 47 rage-tweets yesterday came across like a child wrote them. Is Barron tweeting from the Oval Office? Ghostwriting conspiracies can go both ways.

As someone that has 15 years in Intel and with Yankee White, I call your BS. No, 90% don't write reports like this. They have a team of admins that do it.

This whole things is dirty. There are a few concerns here...

#1  The formatting was spot on for an official "report." A whistleblower submission is not formatted and in fact, is pretty generic. Can be a note, phone call, face to face, electronic submission, etc.
#2  The information utilized was pretty thorough for being a third party to that info. Must have took great notes. I'm sure we've all played the telephone game and know information gets pretty twisted in just one pass through let alone three.
#3  Speaking of notes, the report and attachments contained classified info. That means, by law, the report must be created on a classified system. Also, all notes utilized for that writing are also classified even in draft form. This report took multiple days, maybe weeks. Where was the classified material stored? Multiple people broke laws here. If written on a classified system, see #4.
#4  Timeline shows Congress had been aware well before we were. Did the whistleblower and lawyers get help in formulating this complaint? If you understand anything about how the report was formatted, the answer is yes. Typically this style of report is written by the IG and team who took the complaint. We know this isn't the case here because he/she went hands-off after realizing it wasn't their matter of concern.

Classified material can be shared with members of the intelligence committees of either house... That's why those committee members are there.

DNI Maguire said that the whistleblower did nothing wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As someone that has 15 years in Intel and with Yankee White, I call your BS. No, 90% don't write reports like this. They have a team of admins that do it.

This whole things is dirty. There are a few concerns here...

#1  The formatting was spot on for an official "report." A whistleblower submission is not formatted and in fact, is pretty generic. Can be a note, phone call, face to face, electronic submission, etc.
#2  The information utilized was pretty thorough for being a third party to that info. Must have took great notes. I'm sure we've all played the telephone game and know information gets pretty twisted in just one pass through let alone three.
#3  Speaking of notes, the report and attachments contained classified info. That means, by law, the report must be created on a classified system. Also, all notes utilized for that writing are also classified even in draft form. This report took multiple days, maybe weeks. Where was the classified material stored? Multiple people broke laws here. If written on a classified system, see #4.
#4  Timeline shows Congress had been aware well before we were. Did the whistleblower and lawyers get help in formulating this complaint? If you understand anything about how the report was formatted, the answer is yes. Typically this style of report is written by the IG and team who took the complaint. We know this isn't the case here because he/she went hands-off after realizing it wasn't their matter of concern.

Classified material can be shared with members of the intelligence committees of either house... That's why those committee members are there.

DNI Maguire said that the whistleblower did nothing wrong.

Yeh, you know ur right.  Trump has been kinda loose with his appointments.

---

As someone that has 15 years in Intel and with Yankee White, I call your BS. No, 90% don't write reports like this. They have a team of admins that do it.

This whole things is dirty. There are a few concerns here...

#1  The formatting was spot on for an official "report." A whistleblower submission is not formatted and in fact, is pretty generic. Can be a note, phone call, face to face, electronic submission, etc.
#2  The information utilized was pretty thorough for being a third party to that info. Must have took great notes. I'm sure we've all played the telephone game and know information gets pretty twisted in just one pass through let alone three.
#3  Speaking of notes, the report and attachments contained classified info. That means, by law, the report must be created on a classified system. Also, all notes utilized for that writing are also classified even in draft form. This report took multiple days, maybe weeks. Where was the classified material stored? Multiple people broke laws here. If written on a classified system, see #4.
#4  Timeline shows Congress had been aware well before we were. Did the whistleblower and lawyers get help in formulating this complaint? If you understand anything about how the report was formatted, the answer is yes. Typically this style of report is written by the IG and team who took the complaint. We know this isn't the case here because he/she went hands-off after realizing it wasn't their matter of concern.

Classified material can be shared with members of the intelligence committees of either house... That's why those committee members are there.

DNI Maguire said that the whistleblower did nothing wrong.

To your first part. Once again you are absolutely wrong. There is this misconception that just because you have a clearance of one type or another, you automatically are privy to ALL material of the classification or below. No. Nobody and I mean nobody has access to any or all materials. Can it eventually be shared...sure, with classification authority permission but certainly not in the middle of a complaint investigation.

DNI Maguire is not the IG, but I'll entertain. He did not say that. He said it appeared there was a "credible allegation" and whistleblower did the right thing. As Director, he cannot interfere, and that was a typical CYA statement. Maguire also stated it was not a matter of national security, therefore not in his wheelhouse. Therefore did not investigate. So back to my #4. Who wrote the report?

---

Classified material can be shared with members of the intelligence committees of either house... That's why those committee members are there.

DNI Maguire said that the whistleblower did nothing wrong.

To your first part. Once again you are absolutely wrong. There is this misconception that just because you have a clearance of one type or another, you automatically are privy to ALL material of the classification or below. No. Nobody and I mean nobody has access to any or all materials. Can it eventually be shared...sure, with classification authority permission but certainly not in the middle of a complaint investigation.  

DNI Maguire is not the IG, but I'll entertain. He did not say that. He said it appeared there was a "credible allegation" and whistleblower did the right thing. As Director, he cannot interfere, and that was a typical CYA statement. Maguire also stated it was not a matter of national security, therefore not in his wheelhouse. Therefore did not investigate. So back to my #4. Who wrote the report?

I am well aware that access is not merely a matter of clearance. I understand there's also the "need to know" principle.  I have a friend with top secret clearance who is some sort of expert on guidance systems for missiles. He can access pretty much anything related to gimbals and gyroscopes, but nothing that's not related to that, even if it has a lower level of clearance. The need to know question is all about job duties.

But US Congress is the institution that chartered the CIA. The members of the intelligence committee can claim "need to know" on everything.

I'm glad we agree that the phone call did not have sensitive national security content.  Given this agreement, I am not sure why you're asking all these questions about who knew what and when. The material is true and the material does not betray troop movements or spying strategies or anything of that nature. There is zero chance that Trump ever becomes acquainted with Vladimir zelinski unless he became President. The man is not a personal friend of his and no privacy was owed. as for the idea that 2 leader of free countries should be allowed to discuss things candidly without leaks to the press, that is what summits are for. That is what anonymous subordinates are for. Also, try not to use these phone calls to conspire to have foreign governments publicly release info that is politically sensitive in our country! Try not to do the one thing your people have been out swearing up and down they would never ever do!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ya don't need a friend with top secret clearance to see that this is another Deep State coup attempt. It was launched the day after Mueller let all the wind out of the Russia gasbag. The whistleblower rules were changed specifically for this operation. The House rules were changed by Pelosi specifically for this operation.

---

To your first part. Once again you are absolutely wrong. There is this misconception that just because you have a clearance of one type or another, you automatically are privy to ALL material of the classification or below. No. Nobody and I mean nobody has access to any or all materials. Can it eventually be shared...sure, with classification authority permission but certainly not in the middle of a complaint investigation.  

DNI Maguire is not the IG, but I'll entertain. He did not say that. He said it appeared there was a "credible allegation" and whistleblower did the right thing. As Director, he cannot interfere, and that was a typical CYA statement. Maguire also stated it was not a matter of national security, therefore not in his wheelhouse. Therefore did not investigate. So back to my #4. Who wrote the report?

I am well aware that access is not merely a matter of clearance. I understand there's also the "need to know" principle.  I have a friend with top secret clearance who is some sort of expert on guidance systems for missiles. He can access pretty much anything related to gimbals and gyroscopes, but nothing that's not related to that, even if it has a lower level of clearance. The need to know question is all about job duties.

But US Congress is the institution that chartered the CIA. The members of the intelligence committee can claim "need to know" on everything.

I'm glad we agree that the phone call did not have sensitive national security content.  Given this agreement, I am not sure why you're asking all these questions about who knew what and when. The material is true and the material does not betray troop movements or spying strategies or anything of that nature. There is zero chance that Trump ever becomes acquainted with Vladimir zelinski unless he became President. The man is not a personal friend of his and no privacy was owed. as for the idea that 2 leader of free countries should be allowed to discuss things candidly without leaks to the press, that is what summits are for.  That is what anonymous subordinates are for. Also, try not to use these phone calls to conspire to have foreign governments publicly release info that is politically sensitive in our country! Try not to do the one thing your people have been out swearing up and down they would never ever do!

There you go again.  Why do u feel the need to constantly lie to try and make your points?

---

I am well aware that access is not merely a matter of clearance. I understand there's also the "need to know" principle.  I have a friend with top secret clearance who is some sort of expert on guidance systems for missiles. He can access pretty much anything related to gimbals and gyroscopes, but nothing that's not related to that, even if it has a lower level of clearance. The need to know question is all about job duties.

But US Congress is the institution that chartered the CIA. The members of the intelligence committee can claim "need to know" on everything.

I'm glad we agree that the phone call did not have sensitive national security content.  Given this agreement, I am not sure why you're asking all these questions about who knew what and when. The material is true and the material does not betray troop movements or spying strategies or anything of that nature. There is zero chance that Trump ever becomes acquainted with Vladimir zelinski unless he became President. The man is not a personal friend of his and no privacy was owed. as for the idea that 2 leader of free countries should be allowed to discuss things candidly without leaks to the press, that is what summits are for.  That is what anonymous subordinates are for. Also, try not to use these phone calls to conspire to have foreign governments publicly release info that is politically sensitive in our country! Try not to do the one thing your people have been out swearing up and down they would never ever do!

There you go again.  Why do u feel the need to constantly lie to try and make your points?

What's false about the part in bold?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

To your first part. Once again you are absolutely wrong. There is this misconception that just because you have a clearance of one type or another, you automatically are privy to ALL material of the classification or below. No. Nobody and I mean nobody has access to any or all materials. Can it eventually be shared...sure, with classification authority permission but certainly not in the middle of a complaint investigation.  

DNI Maguire is not the IG, but I'll entertain. He did not say that. He said it appeared there was a "credible allegation" and whistleblower did the right thing. As Director, he cannot interfere, and that was a typical CYA statement. Maguire also stated it was not a matter of national security, therefore not in his wheelhouse. Therefore did not investigate. So back to my #4. Who wrote the report?

I am well aware that access is not merely a matter of clearance. I understand there's also the "need to know" principle.  I have a friend with top secret clearance who is some sort of expert on guidance systems for missiles. He can access pretty much anything related to gimbals and gyroscopes, but nothing that's not related to that, even if it has a lower level of clearance. The need to know question is all about job duties.

But US Congress is the institution that chartered the CIA. The members of the intelligence committee can claim "need to know" on everything.

I'm glad we agree that the phone call did not have sensitive national security content.  Given this agreement, I am not sure why you're asking all these questions about who knew what and when. The material is true and the material does not betray troop movements or spying strategies or anything of that nature. There is zero chance that Trump ever becomes acquainted with Vladimir zelinski unless he became President. The man is not a personal friend of his and no privacy was owed. as for the idea that 2 leader of free countries should be allowed to discuss things candidly without leaks to the press, that is what summits are for.  That is what anonymous subordinates are for. Also, try not to use these phone calls to conspire to have foreign governments publicly release info that is politically sensitive in our country! Try not to do the one thing your people have been out swearing up and down they would never ever do!

Appreciate the friend story but still off base. Once again, nobody has a right or access to all classified material, including Congress even if marginally related. And no, the Intelligence Committee or any other committee does not get access just because they want it. They can claim oversight all they want, but if not directly legislative related, they get squat. On that note, all the subpoenas going out right now don't mean squat. There is no legal basis. They've shot themselves in the foot by screaming impeachment and not following through on specific protocol.

What does troop movements or strategies have to do with anything in this situation? I ask the questions I did because the report was pretty in-depth and sharply formatted for a pee-on and more typical for the IG or special team. So help came from somewhere and I think most of us logical folks know where. The pieces are slowly filling that in. Not something you just put together at home or your work computer. As for your Trump gibberish, it's just that. There is no factuality to what you are spewing, just your emotions.

Personal friend, summits, anonymous subordinates, politically sensitive...WTH? You've fallen fast trying to support this BS.

---

I am well aware that access is not merely a matter of clearance. I understand there's also the "need to know" principle.  I have a friend with top secret clearance who is some sort of expert on guidance systems for missiles. He can access pretty much anything related to gimbals and gyroscopes, but nothing that's not related to that, even if it has a lower level of clearance. The need to know question is all about job duties.

But US Congress is the institution that chartered the CIA. The members of the intelligence committee can claim "need to know" on everything.

I'm glad we agree that the phone call did not have sensitive national security content.  Given this agreement, I am not sure why you're asking all these questions about who knew what and when. The material is true and the material does not betray troop movements or spying strategies or anything of that nature. There is zero chance that Trump ever becomes acquainted with Vladimir zelinski unless he became President. The man is not a personal friend of his and no privacy was owed. as for the idea that 2 leader of free countries should be allowed to discuss things candidly without leaks to the press, that is what summits are for.  That is what anonymous subordinates are for. Also, try not to use these phone calls to conspire to have foreign governments publicly release info that is politically sensitive in our country! Try not to do the one thing your people have been out swearing up and down they would never ever do!

Appreciate the friend story but still off base. Once again, nobody has a right or access to all classified material, including Congress even if marginally related. And no, the Intelligence Committee or any other committee does not get access just because they want it. They can claim oversight all they want, but if not directly legislative related, they get squat. On that note, all the subpoenas going out right now don't mean squat. There is no legal basis. They've shot themselves in the foot by screaming impeachment and not following through on specific protocol.

What does troop movements or strategies have to do with anything in this situation? I ask the questions I did because the report was pretty in-depth and sharply formatted for a pee-on and more typical for the IG or special team. So help came from somewhere and I think most of us logical folks know where. The pieces are slowly filling that in. Not something you just put together at home or your work computer. As for your Trump gibberish, it's just that. There is no factuality to what you are spewing, just your emotions.

Personal friend, summits, anonymous subordinates, politically sensitive...WTH? You've fallen fast trying to support this BS.

A 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress can expose every single secret and fire every single person at CIA, NSF, DoD, everything.
Every breath they take is "legislatively related."
That's why Congress formed the secret-level committees they have.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.