Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

I have read both Frankfurt, Germany and Vienna Austria as the destination of Igor and Lev,but probably does not matter much. Both were sure as hell trying to flee the country.
 
dudalb said:
If you fly to avoid any court appareance, you are liable to prosecution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks for the obvious. I'm asking if we know that is what they were doing. Did they know there were about to be indicted? It would be real nice to know if we have evidence of that.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Looks like the long-term viability of the Biden Crime Syndicate is in deep doo doo.
Click to expand...

Hey, if we've got to sacrifice Joe and Hunter in order to see Rudy and Donnie and Barr frog-marched out of DC to a federal holding facility (preferably at Guantanamo), it's a fair trade. ('Cuz no one here supports Biden, anyway.)
 
Ziggurat said:
And Fusion was paid by Clinton. Steele was working for Clinton. The existence of an intermediary in the relationship doesn't change that. And the Republican work with Fusion wasn't what produced the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know that this is a Right Wing talking point, but you are wrong, it does change things. How do I know, because I'm in the same situation.

I work for my Company, which contracts to do work for other Companies. One of the main one has a bunch of clients who want jobs done, and that Company sends me the jobs. I do the jobs and bill the company who contracted me, I don't bill their clients, I don't interact with their clients. If messages need to go between me and their client, they go through the Contracting Company. I am not working for their clients in any way other than that I am doing the job their client asked to be done.

The same structure applies in the Clinton to Steele situation. The Clinton Campaign hired Fusion. Fusion contracted out to Steele's Company who had Steele do the work. Like in my situation, there was no direct communications between Steele and the Campaign, and the Campaign were likely unaware of who the information that Fusion supplied to them was even coming from.

The argument that Steele was working for Clinton just can be made to look as ridiculous as it it by asking how many steps removed does a person need to be before they are no longer working for the initial client?

If the US Government pays NASA to launch a rocket, and NASA hires Boeing to build the rocket, and Boeing hires RocketLab to build a component, and RocketLab hires an engineering company to design that component, and that engineering company hires one of the firms that I contract for to do programming work to do with that design, and so that company hires my company, and so me, do you then consider that I am working for the US Government?

See how crazy this argument is.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
No. There are serious, principled arguments for obeying the law. I have made such arguments from time to time, based on my principles, which I try to use to guide my choices and actions. There are also serious, principled arguments for breaking the law, at least in certain situations. I have made such arguments as well, based on my principles.

In general, I think that rule of law is important, and that obedience to the law and compliance with due process of law is a very important part of maintaining a healthy society. However, I think that in some cases, there are moral principles that override the value of rule of law and due process. In some cases, civil disobedience is the most principled course of action. If I thought civil disobedience were warranted, I'd want to make a principled, rational argument in favor of it.

There are also arbitrary, irrational arguments for obeying or breaking the law. These are, in my opinion, the kinds of arguments that Craig4 is making. The "principle" he's appealed to, that "real Americans" don't break the law to oppose the government, is laughably and obviously untrue. This isn't a principled argument.

Yitzak Rabin's assassins were able to make a principled argument for their decision to engage in extreme disobedience. Sirhan Sirhan was not.

Dr King was able to make a principled argument for breaking the law in order to oppose an unjust government. Craig4 has so far not made a principled argument for *not* breaking the law to oppose an unjust government. Even though it seems to me that, given what he appears to believe, he has no less authority than Dr King on his side, if he were to advocate civil disobedience and other lawbreaking in opposition to the Trump administration. Dr King, the Underground Railroad, and even the founders themselves.

(The founders being another group who were able to make a principled argument about lawbreaking, when they chose to rebel against their lawful government.)
Click to expand...

That's nice but it has nothing to do with my post or what it was responding to.

My position since the "popular vote" meme first emerged, is that it's a reframing of how US elections actually work, intended to invalidate Trump literally winning a presidential election. I push back on the meme not out of some slavish devotion to technical correctness or doctrinaire principle, but because I think it's an important distinction that actually matters to how we understand, debate, and propose to change our system of government.

I push back not because it contradicts some private, personal, pointless standard of "correctness", but because I think it actually matters to us as citizens, and as a nation, to get this right. Contrast this with someone else, who might readily agree that their correctness does not matter at all, not even to themselves.
Click to expand...

That all sounds great as well, but is undercut by your ridiculous appeal to subsets of popular votes.
 
dudalb said:
I have read both Frankfurt, Germany and Vienna Austria as the destination of Igor and Lev,but probably does not matter much. Both were sure as hell trying to flee the country.
Click to expand...

Frankfurt was probably their first stop. It's the major hub for United and Lufthansa.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yeah I know that this is a Right Wing talking point, but you are wrong, it does change things. How do I know, because I'm in the same situation.

I work for my Company, which contracts to do work for other Companies. One of the main one has a bunch of clients who want jobs done, and that Company sends me the jobs. I do the jobs and bill the company who contracted me, I don't bill their clients, I don't interact with their clients. If messages need to go between me and their client, they go through the Contracting Company. I am not working for their clients in any way other than that I am doing the job their client asked to be done.

The same structure applies in the Clinton to Steele situation. The Clinton Campaign hired Fusion. Fusion contracted out to Steele's Company who had Steele do the work. Like in my situation, there was no direct communications between Steele and the Campaign, and the Campaign were likely unaware of who the information that Fusion supplied to them was even coming from.

The argument that Steele was working for Clinton just can be made to look as ridiculous as it it by asking how many steps removed does a person need to be before they are no longer working for the initial client?

If the US Government pays NASA to launch a rocket, and NASA hires Boeing to build the rocket, and Boeing hires RocketLab to build a component, and RocketLab hires an engineering company to design that component, and that engineering company hires one of the firms that I contract for to do programming work to do with that design, and so that company hires my company, and so me, do you then consider that I am working for the US Government?

See how crazy this argument is.
Click to expand...

If you've got an employment dispute, you only take it up one level. But yes, in a very real sense you are working for the US government. It is their goal which your work is going towards. That's not crazy, it's not absurd, it's rather simple and obvious.
 
Ziggurat said:
But yes, in a very real sense you are working for the US government. It is their goal which your work is going towards. That's not crazy, it's not absurd, it's rather simple and obvious.
Click to expand...

It's absurd because by that standard everybody is working for the government and for every business in the world.

As I said, parody.
 
The blatant fact that the Clinton/Steele situation isn't parallel to Trump/Ukraine is being overlooked, even if we grant Zig's technically correct statement. It isn't parallel in the most fundamental, obvious way: Clinton didn't use the lever of US foreign policy to coerce a foreign government to help her.

The sidetrack about the proper way to describe multi-level employer/contractor relationships is a bright red herring.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
The blatant fact that the Clinton/Steele situation isn't parallel to Trump/Ukraine is being overlooked, even if we grant Zig's technically correct statement. It isn't parallel in the most fundamental, obvious way: Clinton didn't use the lever of US foreign policy to coerce a foreign government to help her.

The sidetrack about the proper way to describe employer/contractor relationships is a bright red herring.
Click to expand...

How about we ignore it then.

I mean, the Trump sycophants on this forum are only ever presenting whataboutisms. Why not make a concerted effort to ignore it?
 
uke2se said:
How about we ignore it then.

I mean, the Trump sycophants on this forum are only ever presenting whataboutisms. Why not make a concerted effort to ignore it?
Click to expand...
I agree that it's a good thing not to be baited by whataboutisms. Going down the rabbit hole and debating the semantics of multi-level employer/contractor relationships is taking the bait. Calling out the whataboutism is not taking the bait in my view, and is a worthy endeavor.
 
varwoche said:
I agree that it's a good thing not to be baited by whataboutisms. Going down the rabbit hole and debating the semantics of multi-level employer/contractor relationships is taking the bait. Calling out the whataboutism is not taking the bait in my view, and is a worthy endeavor.
Click to expand...

Seems kind of redundant. Some posters post nothing but whataboutisms in a desperate effort to defend their vote for a corrupt moron. We can simply acknowledge that fact and ignore the whataboutisms. The end result is likely that the posters go away.

I see it as a behavioral problem and not a problem of balance or something that needs to be discussed.
 
Last edited:
I don't share your concerns. In general, I don't want "them" to go away. I may not fully appreciate it in real time, but my opponents are the ones most likely to help me see flaws in my thinking.

I don't wish to discuss them further because it's off-topic and somewhat discourteous.
 
If President Hillary Clinton froze aid and requested cooperation from foreign powers to investigate her political opponents, Republicans would be perfectly OK with it. It's not even close to a real crime like Benghazi.
 
Belz... said:
That's nice but it has nothing to do with my post or what it was responding to.
Click to expand...
Okay.

ETA: Sorry, that's not entirely fair to you. To explain better: I've said something. You haven't understood it. I've tried once to explain it. You're still not understanding. Historically, trying to get to the bottom of the misunderstanding has never paid off. This seems like as good a place as any to leave the matter as it stands.
 
Last edited:
Are we still expecting to hear testimony from this whistleblower at any point?

He/she was going to Testify in front of Congress as "early as next week" about a week ago and that was the last I heard of it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Are we still expecting to hear testimony from this whistleblower at any point?

He/she was going to Testify in front of Congress as "early as next week" about a week ago and that was the last I heard of it.
Click to expand...

He would like to do it in writing instead of in person because of the obvious backlash, and threats to him\herself and their family. Which is completely and entirely understandable considering you have a POTUS that's calling him a ******* spy and asking for him to be tried for treason.

They're hashing it out, but now there are two whistleblowers, not just one. It will take a bit to make sure they're safe and protected from Trump and his **** stain supporters.
 
Belz... said:
It's absurd because by that standard everybody is working for the government and for every business in the world.

As I said, parody.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. My work has nothing to do with the aims of the US government. It isn't to further any goal that they have. Same with most people.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you've got an employment dispute, you only take it up one level. But yes, in a very real sense you are working for the US government. It is their goal which your work is going towards. That's not crazy, it's not absurd, it's rather simple and obvious.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
It isn't parallel in the most fundamental, obvious way: Clinton didn't use the lever of US foreign policy to coerce a foreign government to help her.
Click to expand...

You're allowed to HIRE foreigners.

That's not the same thing, legally or otherwise, as acceptance of a donation or solicitation of a donation.

The ban on foreign "contributions" isn't a ban on HIRING foreigners.

I know Republicans think the FEC is basically like "infowars of the left" or whatever now, but..
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
There is a photo of Donnie posing with the two guys just arrested...….keeps getting better.
Click to expand...

And a classic Trump response:

"I don't know those gentleman. That is possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody -- I have a picture with everybody here. But somebody said there may be a picture with -- at a fundraiser or somewhere so, but I have pictures with everybody. I don't know if there's anybody I don't have pictures with. I don't know them," Trump said.

You have to ask Rudy. I just don't know"​

There's not a bus Trump has seen that he's not thrown someone under.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
And a classic Trump response:

"I don't know those gentleman. That is possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody -- I have a picture with everybody here. But somebody said there may be a picture with -- at a fundraiser or somewhere so, but I have pictures with everybody. I don't know if there's anybody I don't have pictures with. I don't know them," Trump said.

You have to ask Rudy. I just don't know"​

There's not a bus Trump has seen that he's not thrown someone under.
Click to expand...


You know, that is what is so annoying about Trump. He is such a stupid liar. He is not at all clever about it.
He should have just said "Yeah, I was in a photo with the guys, but that is it, I did not really meet them : (which is plausible, any politician is going to pose with people he really does not know) but instead he says an obvious lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom