***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Belgium said:
Click to expand...

wait, what

Sounds like a uhh...dare I say, "witch hunt"?
full
 
elpablo21 said:
wait, what

Sounds like a uhh...dare I say, "witch hunt"?
full
Click to expand...
From what I recall from the Inspector General report there is some merit to the case but also several factors that would make it hard to sustain a false statement indictment, much less a conviction.

McCabe gave false information to federal investigators on 2 separate occasions. The issue was whether or not he authorized Lisa Page to disclose to the WSJ that there was an ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe said he hadn't authorized the disclosure and didn't know who did. He made that claim to Comey and to Office of Inspector General investigators in 2 interviews. That's clearly problematic.
However, McCabe corrected his accounts on his own initiative a few days later, prior to any suggestion he had made false statements. Additionally, Lisa Page testified to the grand jury that McCabe had authorized her and had no motive to lie, thus backing up McCabe's correction. 2 of the prosecutors involved in the investigation, including one of the lead prosecutors, dropped out of the investigation, though that's not necessarily related to a disagreement with the direction of the probe.


False statement charges have a corrupt intent requirement, thus it would be hard to get a conviction with those mitigating circumstances. It's hard to argue to a jury that McCabe deliberately set out to mislead the investigators when he called the office himself to notify them that he believed his previous statements were inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Also, if the grand jury indeed did not approve an indictment against McCabe, it would mean that prosecutors were unable to convince a simple majority out of 23 jurors. The grand jury evidentiary standard is 'probable cause' rather than the trial standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
 
Hmm. They key part here is that the Intel Community Inspector General described the claim as "credible" and of "urgent concern."
It also appears to involve "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the intel community."
The Acting DNI will be subpoenaed to testify publicly on September 19 if he continues to obstruct. He is required by law to turn over whistleblower complaints to the Intel Committees within 10 days after the complaint was filed but refused to do so. He also consulted with the DOJ during the process of obstructing Congress.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/schiff-maguire-intelligence-1496135
Schiff accuses top intel official of illegally withholding 'urgent' whistleblower complaint
The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.

Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."

“A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the [inspector general] determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never," Schiff said in a statement. "This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct."

Schiff indicated that he learned the matter involved "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community," raising the specter that it is "being withheld to protect the President or other Administration officials." In addition, Schiff slammed Maguire for consulting the Justice Department about the whistleblower complaint "even though the statute does not provide you discretion to review, appeal, reverse, or countermand in any way the [inspector general's] independent determination, let alone to involve another entity within the Executive Branch."
"The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials," Schiff wrote in a letter to Maguire on Friday.

The initial whistleblower complaint was filed last month, and Schiff indicated that it was required by law to be shared with Congress nearly two weeks ago. His subpoena requires the information to be turned over by Sept. 17 or else he intends to compel Maguire to appear before Congress in a public hearing on Sept. 19.

Schiff said Maguire declined to confirm or deny whether the whistleblower's complaint relates to anything the Intelligence Committee is currently investigating or whether White House lawyers were involved in the decision-making about the complaint.
Click to expand...
EEYcQrAWsAEKB53
 
Last edited:
Belgium said:
Hmm. They key part here is that the Intel Community Inspector General described the claim as "credible" and of "urgent concern."
It also appears to involve "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the intel community."
The Acting DNI will be subpoenaed to testify publicly on September 19 if he continues to obstruct. He is required by law to turn over whistleblower complaints to the Intel Committees within 10 days after the complaint was filed but refused to do so. He also consulted with the DOJ during the process of obstructing Congress.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/schiff-maguire-intelligence-1496135
Schiff accuses top intel official of illegally withholding 'urgent' whistleblower complaint
The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.

Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."

“A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the [inspector general] determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never," Schiff said in a statement. "This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct."

Schiff indicated that he learned the matter involved "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community," raising the specter that it is "being withheld to protect the President or other Administration officials." In addition, Schiff slammed Maguire for consulting the Justice Department about the whistleblower complaint "even though the statute does not provide you discretion to review, appeal, reverse, or countermand in any way the [inspector general's] independent determination, let alone to involve another entity within the Executive Branch."

EEYcQrAWsAEKB53
Click to expand...

some speculation but I wouldn't be surprised:

 
whywesteppin said:
some speculation but I wouldn't be surprised:

Click to expand...

I don’t think the timeline fits. The spy was exfiltrated in 2017. Trump was briefed on it at the time according to the NYT. If the media was able to identify and locate the spy, the Kremlin wouldn’t need any assistance.
The whistleblower complaint was filed with the IC Inspector General somewhere in mid August last month. The IG notified the DNI on August 26 [1].
The DNI did not rule out that it was related to an aspect of House Intel’s active investigation(s).

I think a more likely possibility would be something having to do with Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden.

I can’t really think of anything that fits the circumstances though.
Clearly it’s incriminating enough that the law is being violated to keep the complaint of Congress’ hands.

1) https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190910_-_chm_schiff_letter_to_acting_dni_maguire.pdf
 
Last edited:
Belgium said:
I don’t think the timeline fits. The spy was exfiltrated in 2017. Trump was briefed on it at the time according to the NYT. If the media was able to identify and locate the spy, the Kremlin wouldn’t need any assistance.
The whistleblower complaint was filed with the IC Inspector General somewhere in mid August last month. The IG notified the DNI on August 26.
The DNI did not rule out that it was related to an aspect of House Intel’s active investigation(s).

I think a more likely possibility would be something having to do with Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden. I can’t really think of anything that fits the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Good point. I didn't realize the spy thing happened a couple years ago.

The other piece in this puzzle is that Coats and Gordon were forced out August 15. And the whistleblower complaint was first filed August 12 (according to Schiff's Sept. 10 letter to acting DNI). And Trump announced on July 28 that Coats would be forced out.

Maybe the whistleblower tried to come forward before Coats would leave, or at least it was triggered by those events?

Hopefully we'll find out more this coming week.
 
whywesteppin said:
Good point. I didn't realize the spy thing happened a couple years ago.

The other piece in this puzzle is that Coats and Gordon were forced out August 15. And the whistleblower complaint was first filed August 12 (according to Schiff's Sept. 10 letter to acting DNI). And Trump announced on July 28 that Coats would be forced out.

Maybe the whistleblower tried to come forward before Coats would leave, or at least it was triggered by those events?

Hopefully we'll find out more this coming week.
Click to expand...
The timing of Coats and Gordon’s departures is suspicious but someone would have had to leak to the WH before the complaint was filed. Coats’ resignation came on July 28 but was not effective immediately. Sue Gordon resigned on August 8.

Edit: Perhaps the whistleblower is Coats or Gordon :nerd:

Either way we should find out more in the coming week.
 
Last edited:
I loosely follow politics these days , didn’t watch the debate last night aside from clips.

I know he doesn’t have a realistic shot but my goodness I love Beto’s passion. He’s been my favorite for quite some time but I feel most people aren’t a fan of his.
 
cragmatic said:
I loosely follow politics these days , didn’t watch the debate last night aside from clips.

I know he doesn’t have a realistic shot but my goodness I love Beto’s passion. He’s been my favorite for quite some time but I feel most people aren’t a fan of his.
Click to expand...

Dude has been ****ting on himself since he announced while getting a haircut. To Rusty’s point, he finally started finding his stride in the last month. Possibly too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
9K
chezzer10
chezzer10
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
datznasty
datznasty

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom