Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

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.

Officials in Maguire’s office acknowledged Schiff’s subpoena late Friday.

“We received the HPSCI's subpoena this evening. We are reviewing the request and will respond appropriately,” said a senior intelligence official. “The ODNI and Acting DNI Maguire are committed to fully complying with the law and upholding whistleblower protections and have done so here.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120September 30, 2019 10:37 AM

Further info:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1September 14, 2019 6:52 AM

Allegedly the whistleblower is Susan M. Gordon who served as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) until August 15, 2019

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2September 14, 2019 7:54 AM

Keep this thread going and story alive. This could be it, LOL, how many times have I said that?

by Anonymousreply 3September 14, 2019 7:55 AM

What on earth could this be about

by Anonymousreply 4September 14, 2019 7:57 AM

R2 she’s a Zoology major and former basketball player, we may have a Bull in the china shop.

by Anonymousreply 5September 14, 2019 7:58 AM

Fox is even covering it without a slant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6September 14, 2019 8:10 AM

Dump giving classified intel to Putin with a whistleblower witness in the room.

by Anonymousreply 7September 14, 2019 8:39 AM

Hopefully, there'll be more info in a few hours. I'm curious to see how this unravels.

by Anonymousreply 8September 14, 2019 9:00 AM

Hate that this is happening on a weekend, but it sounds like it was genuinely urgent and not just being buried during the Friday news cycle. It's legitimately concerning but so much that happened is.

by Anonymousreply 9September 14, 2019 9:06 AM

If there really is credible evidence that Donald Trump is a security risk to the USA, why hasn't the US Congress impeached him already? I can't stand the guy, but it doesn't seem like he's going anywhere.

by Anonymousreply 10September 14, 2019 9:14 AM

The President can de-classify anything he wants, so Trump giving info to Putin with someone else in the room wouldn't be worth a whistleblower complaint.

I'm wondering if someone in the intelligence committee is improperly giving the White House information related to the Russian that was exfiltrated in 2017. I don't think they could refuse a President's direct request for information, but I would assume that there's a process in place to protect the Russian's hiding place. Maybe it's as simple as the right protocols not being used to protect the Russian's safety.

by Anonymousreply 11September 14, 2019 9:28 AM

[Quote] If there really is credible evidence that Donald Trump is a security risk to the USA, why hasn't the US Congress impeached him already?

Nancy Pelosi.

by Anonymousreply 12September 14, 2019 9:39 AM

r10, you seemed to have missed a huge element of this story which is that some high ranker in intelligence is illegally withholding the complaint from congress.

by Anonymousreply 13September 14, 2019 10:17 AM

R12 you misspelled #MoscowMitch.

by Anonymousreply 14September 14, 2019 10:20 AM

It never ceases to amaze me this doofus family of greedy grifters, liars and wannabes is referred to as an administration.

by Anonymousreply 15September 14, 2019 10:43 AM

As usual....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16September 14, 2019 11:02 AM

[quote]It's been reported that this high level intelligence asset was instrumental in the Russian interference investigation. If trump Burns that witness, the Russian investigation basically goes away, right?

by Anonymousreply 17September 14, 2019 12:39 PM

R17, the Russia investigation is much more complex than that.

by Anonymousreply 18September 14, 2019 1:24 PM

r18, uh yeah, duh. That comment was specifically speculation about what the whistleblower blew.

by Anonymousreply 19September 14, 2019 2:49 PM

ahem

by Anonymousreply 20September 14, 2019 6:33 PM

We need to know what this is about.

Any updates?

by Anonymousreply 21September 14, 2019 6:41 PM

We cannot let this story die.

by Anonymousreply 22September 14, 2019 6:44 PM

Bump for new info

by Anonymousreply 23September 14, 2019 6:55 PM

Don't listen to r22. I know what's good politics.

by Anonymousreply 24September 14, 2019 6:56 PM

We probably won't get an update til Monday.

by Anonymousreply 25September 14, 2019 7:19 PM

Does the press not work weekends?

by Anonymousreply 26September 14, 2019 9:03 PM

r26, the issue is that there will be no forward motion with this until the federal government clocks in again on Monday morning.

If you're not a moron, stop asking moronic questions.

by Anonymousreply 27September 15, 2019 12:48 AM

I'm surprised we haven't gotten any more info from reporters. They've had plenty of time to dig up something.

by Anonymousreply 28September 15, 2019 1:56 AM

I’m surprised too that nothing else has broken. So... one take on this. Whatever happened has implicated Dump in some very serious way. I think if it were someone else, a reporter could get a source to leak. But if it’s Dump, and it’s as serious as is being hinted, there would have to be a significant consideration of impeachment, and the higher ups in the government who know are not willing to go down that road, so they’ve clammed up.

Can you tell I just want Dump gone?

by Anonymousreply 29September 15, 2019 4:28 AM

Anything new yet?

by Anonymousreply 30September 16, 2019 12:08 PM

DNI refusing the subpoena

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31September 16, 2019 12:21 PM

Uhhh isn't that illegal? Have we finally hit a constitutional crisis?

by Anonymousreply 32September 16, 2019 12:28 PM

To all of the morons here bitching about Pelosi, we'll say this yet AGAIN:

Impeaching Trump does not remove him from office. The Senate has to convict, which is not going to happen. Result: a symbolic gesture and Trump is still in the WH. No change.

Please drill this into your thick skulls.

by Anonymousreply 33September 16, 2019 12:31 PM

R33, It's STILL the House Democrats job to provide oversight on this president. He has broken laws and he is a criminal; and it is the House's responsibility to hold him accountable for them, regardless of whether it is politically "popular" to do so.

Impeachment begins and ends in the House. As much as I hate Moscow Mitch, he has nothing to do what takes place in the House. That begins and ends with Ms. Pelosi.

by Anonymousreply 34September 16, 2019 12:38 PM

"We cannot let this story die."

Oh Chris just shut up..

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35September 16, 2019 2:28 PM

R33 the crucial difference is duty versus politics.

by Anonymousreply 36September 16, 2019 3:30 PM

R34 you sound as if the Democrats in the House have been twiddling their thumbs. Have you been under a rock while the Committees have been issuing subpoenas and holding hearings? And sharing information on with the media?

The WH and DOJ have been stonewalling like crazy for months to keep people from testifying or providing documents. Barr was formally found in contempt of Congress. Do you actually think an impeachment vote will change any of this?

Thank God Pelosi is Speaker of the House and not you.

by Anonymousreply 37September 16, 2019 6:43 PM

Can’t we at least get a leak?

by Anonymousreply 38September 16, 2019 7:12 PM

Unbelievable. The things Republicans would of done to Obama in a similar situation.

by Anonymousreply 39September 16, 2019 7:53 PM

Well.....you could always take one.

by Anonymousreply 40September 16, 2019 10:16 PM

R39 I'd amend your remark to if obama had done a thousandth of what Trump has done.

History will not be kind to Pelosi r37. She has kept the party on the back foot. Who says impeachment is off the table from the very start? The party lacks guts and fire. I'd agree with r34 yet feel even that doesn't go far enough. Obama himself took universal health coverage off the table when creating Obama care.

You can say both Pelosi and Obama are realistic about what they can deliver and so on. And the virtues of teaching our across the aisle etc. Its just negotiating against yourself cast as as self fulfilling prophecy

But I don't recall the GOP ever taking anything of the table or reaching out to the dems at the beginning of any negotiation. It's a singularly neoliberal practice since they are the opposition in name only, being sucking off the same corporate teat.

As with everything, follow the money.

by Anonymousreply 41September 16, 2019 10:49 PM

Anything further?

by Anonymousreply 42September 17, 2019 2:09 AM

The whistleblower's complaint apparently concerned the handling of classified material, so people are reluctant to talk for fear that they themselves will be accused of leaking classified info.

by Anonymousreply 43September 17, 2019 2:26 AM

R11 Adam Schiff has publicly raised his voice once. He is a former U.S. Attorney. I don’t know if you have an agenda but read his letter. This isn’t protocol. It is major and likely ongoing.

by Anonymousreply 44September 17, 2019 2:34 AM

R37 R34 is one of the trolls here. He is also R34 - R36. They’re paid to be divisive and start false narratives.

by Anonymousreply 45September 17, 2019 2:39 AM

Very wrong R45. I am not R34.

by Anonymousreply 46September 17, 2019 1:41 PM

Oops. Sorry R45, I completely misread your post. And yes, you're right.

by Anonymousreply 47September 17, 2019 1:42 PM
by Anonymousreply 48September 18, 2019 4:46 PM

Oh boy...I think we all guessed this, though.

“DNI whistleblower complaint stems from promise Trump allegedly made in phone call to foreign leader: Report.”

Washington Post is the source of the original story.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49September 19, 2019 1:51 AM

No prizes, I think, for guessing who that foreign leader was.

by Anonymousreply 50September 19, 2019 2:03 AM

This won’t change a fucking thing though. He could literally give the nuclear codes over and these Hillbilly fucks would worship him still.

by Anonymousreply 51September 19, 2019 2:05 AM

He's owned by several, r50.

Putin

Bibi

MBS

...and I'm sure there are others.

by Anonymousreply 52September 19, 2019 2:10 AM

This gets worse and worse...the DNI broke the law. This is all about promises made to Putin, by Trump. How awful!!

by Anonymousreply 53September 19, 2019 2:11 AM

R46 sorry R45.

by Anonymousreply 54September 19, 2019 2:12 AM

The timing suggests that it could have been a promise to Putin with withdraw $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, which Trump did try to do. Trump no longer knows Bibi, R52, since Bibi is now a loser.

by Anonymousreply 55September 19, 2019 2:16 AM

I’ll tell you what—if Dump promised Putin something significant in exchange for debt relief or something for his business, I think a LOT of deplorables would take pause. I really do. Not all of them, but a lot. It definitely would be huge. And no doubt impeachable.

In fact, I’m having trouble thinking of anything other than something involving Dump’s businesses that would trigger a whistleblower complaint.

by Anonymousreply 56September 19, 2019 2:18 AM

Any speculation as to how the woman who made the report found out? The translator? Or something we overheard?

by Anonymousreply 57September 19, 2019 2:20 AM

R57, the WaPo article cites several unnamed officials as sources. More than one person from the intelligence community may have direct knowledge of the phone call at issue.

by Anonymousreply 58September 19, 2019 2:24 AM

Do we know it was a woman? Sorry, maybe I missed something... hah maybe it was Kellyanne! Seriously, I don’t know of any women of any rank who would be in a position to overhear a conversation of that level. Or maybe is was the translator. Which I don’t get—why is one needed when Putin speaks English?

by Anonymousreply 59September 19, 2019 2:25 AM

R55 Bibi only just lost. Presumably, this happened before yesterday.

by Anonymousreply 60September 19, 2019 2:26 AM

I wonder if we droned the oil field so the Saudi's can start something with Iran.

by Anonymousreply 61September 19, 2019 2:28 AM

I don't think any story has said that the whistle blower is a woman. The conversation involved may have been recorded by the IC. I can't imagine that Trump would want anyone else physically present

by Anonymousreply 62September 19, 2019 2:33 AM

This is very intriguing. Lots of questions—was the person in the room, or did they overhear? Or maybe it was a recording by the IC. Maybe Dump didn’t know he was being recorded? Or maybe he did and is just a moron? Hopefully all of this leaks—SOON!

by Anonymousreply 63September 19, 2019 2:37 AM

Wow guys, the whistleblower is Bolton. I’m sure of it. The Washington Post says “former officials” are the source of their story. He is just now a former official.

by Anonymousreply 64September 19, 2019 2:56 AM

r62, you're wrong. In the original Twitter thread on this subject, the whistleblower was fairly positively identified. And she's a woman.

by Anonymousreply 65September 19, 2019 3:02 AM

Link, R65? I'm not on Twitter . . .

by Anonymousreply 66September 19, 2019 3:04 AM

He might have confirmed it but I even doubt that. But the original source can’t be him,

The original source is an employee of the NIA.

Can’t wait to hear what it is.

by Anonymousreply 67September 19, 2019 3:04 AM

The rumor, unconfirmed, is that it is Sue Gordon, who was fired by Trump around the time the complaint was filed.

by Anonymousreply 68September 19, 2019 3:06 AM

Fox News has been very smart about putting forth a narrative that they can continue without trump.

In a way, so have some Republican Senators and congressmen, even many that support him publicly, if you pay very careful attention to their phrasing and words of support.

They all have built into their narrative to eventually throw him under the bus.

by Anonymousreply 69September 19, 2019 3:07 AM

Geez if it was Sue Gordon, what a fucking great system we have for protecting whistleblowers. She files a report and is thusly fired—exactly what the process is supposed to prevent. But we’re in the Dump upside down world. Does anyone feel that this is going to blow? Bigger than anything that’s come before? I have the feelies....

Of course, I’ve wished this since Jan. 20, 2017.

by Anonymousreply 70September 19, 2019 3:16 AM

R2 her wiki is linked there

by Anonymousreply 71September 19, 2019 3:23 AM

Ned Price said on Lawrence that the whistleblower was not a political appointee (like Bolton) but rather was most likely an IC professional.

by Anonymousreply 72September 19, 2019 3:24 AM

R72 was that a guess or something he knew? I’m assuming the whistleblower process doesn’t cover appointees, right?

by Anonymousreply 73September 19, 2019 3:35 AM

I don't remember his exact words, but it came across pretty confidently that it would not be a political appointee.

by Anonymousreply 74September 19, 2019 3:39 AM

It’s an employee.

Somebody is pushing this disgruntled former official theory when they said a week ago that the whistleblower is an EMPLOYEE!

Furthermore, Bolton was still in his position when this first broke.

by Anonymousreply 75September 19, 2019 3:44 AM

R75, but Bolton is probably one of the former officials who’s a source for the story.

by Anonymousreply 76September 19, 2019 3:54 AM

I hire the best people!

by Anonymousreply 77September 19, 2019 3:58 AM

I don’t disagree with that r76. But that’s not been made clear in the multiple posts I’ve seen about it.

by Anonymousreply 78September 19, 2019 4:02 AM

Let this guy handle it

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79September 19, 2019 4:03 AM

R64, you realize that there are approximately 48,000 "former administration officials" in this particular service, don't you?

by Anonymousreply 80September 19, 2019 4:16 AM

I do not think they would, R56. Too many of them are too far gone.

by Anonymousreply 81September 19, 2019 4:21 AM

Nancy Pelosi said anything yet?

by Anonymousreply 82September 19, 2019 4:35 AM

Don't rush her, R82.

by Anonymousreply 83September 19, 2019 5:29 AM

R83 is right. Get back to me in 6 years. Until then it's off the table.

by Anonymousreply 84September 19, 2019 8:38 AM

Washington Post:

Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 85September 19, 2019 2:26 PM

Washington Post:

Analysis: What is the Trump whistleblower complaint about? Here’s a timeline of what we know.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86September 19, 2019 2:31 PM

July 31: Trump holds a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The call is first reported by the Russians. The White House doesn’t confirm it till late that evening, saying Trump “expressed concern over the vast wildfires afflicting Siberia” and, “The leaders also discussed trade between the two countries.” The Russians, in a much more substantial readout, claim Trump and Putin also spoke about restoring full relations one day.

Vlad, ya gotta rake those forests!

by Anonymousreply 87September 19, 2019 2:33 PM

You losers with your Pelosi crap. There's nothing to be done until the whistleblower leaks or the matter is finally rightfully referred to Congress like it should have been already.

by Anonymousreply 88September 19, 2019 2:33 PM

Scary

by Anonymousreply 89September 19, 2019 2:39 PM

r89 needs to acquaint herself with a thesaurus.

by Anonymousreply 90September 19, 2019 2:43 PM

the president is a criminal

by Anonymousreply 91September 19, 2019 2:47 PM

Allegedly the whistleblower is Susan M. Gordon who served as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) until August 15, 2019

Okay, so let's assume for a moment this *is* the whistleblower; but DNI is doing the bidding of Barr at the DOJ and refuses to release the information: can't this woman go directly to Congress? Clearly she can't go to the media without committing a crime as others have astutely noted, but she's obviously conscientious enough to report the issue (so she's clearly not a true believer/Dumpee) and she's lost her job anyway, so why not?

by Anonymousreply 92September 19, 2019 9:49 PM

Why wasn't Shiff in front of a Judge today to get a subpoena and arrest warrant for fail to comply?

by Anonymousreply 93September 19, 2019 9:56 PM

I would not mind seeing Ned Price in a jockstrap.

by Anonymousreply 94September 19, 2019 9:59 PM

R92 that’s a very good question; I was thinking the same thing. Can’t Congress just subpoena her? I know they’re guessing just as we are, but if she is the whistleblower, she’d have to testify.

by Anonymousreply 95September 19, 2019 10:00 PM

Because this is WDC, I'm guessing that while we don't know what was said, we'll know who said it in short order. This (supposedly) happened under Dan Coates' watch and he appears to have turned against Trump - you know there have to be plenty of other disgruntled types who left and will leave soon who are outraged by this whole thing - so someone's bound to say "I'm almost certain it was Ginny in Accounting!" to some WP reporter sooner or later.

by Anonymousreply 96September 19, 2019 10:28 PM

The WP reporter will immediately know that someone's a DLer, r96.

by Anonymousreply 97September 19, 2019 10:49 PM

[quote]Why wasn't Shiff in front of a Judge today to get a subpoena and arrest warrant for fail to comply?

because, if you bothered to find out what powers the dems actually have, you would know that they can cite a witness for contempt, which they could do for failure to comply with a subpoena) but have no ability to arrest anyone, they would refer the citation to the Justice Dept (i.e., Barr) to enforce. which means nobody's getting arrested or going to jail.

by Anonymousreply 98September 20, 2019 2:09 AM

I watched a clip of Giuliani sputtering on Chris Cuomo's show. When he tried to mention Biden's son, Cuomo interrupted him. So I looked into it and it's really bad. Biden's son got $3m by an energy company n Ukraine shortly after Biden told Ukraine to up its energy production (Biden was VP at the time). Ukraine started an investigation into the company for corruption and VP Biden pressured Ukraine to drop the investigation.

Then VP Biden visited China on Air Force 2 & Hunter Biden was with him. Two weeks later Hunter Biden signed a $1.5B equity deal with China.

This is something that will derail a presidential campaign. This whole thing is going to blow up because it involved Trump & Giuliani looking into these deals with Biden's son when Biden was VP. It's hurtful to Trump but it's hurtful to Biden, too. I think he's done as a candidate.

by Anonymousreply 99September 20, 2019 2:22 AM

We're in big trouble.

by Anonymousreply 100September 20, 2019 2:44 AM

nice work boris, an extra shot of vodka tonight for that R99

by Anonymousreply 101September 20, 2019 2:45 AM

Schiff is pissed off. He had blotches of ire on his face. He needs us on his side, he's frustrated with the lack of interest.

by Anonymousreply 102September 20, 2019 2:48 AM

I have plenty of interest to roll the guillotines, r102.

Might have to make an extra big one for some of those disgusting blobs in the GOP.

by Anonymousreply 103September 20, 2019 2:52 AM

You couldn't have looked into it too hard, r99.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104September 20, 2019 3:05 AM

They’re ALL fucking corrupt. Just Trump is getting away with it. The statement by his Attorney shows what the game is, staying in office past the statutes of limitations.

by Anonymousreply 105September 20, 2019 4:21 AM

Barr will never let the truth out. The whistle blower will have to grow a spinevand tell congress himself. You guys know that...Barr is Trumps Heimler.

by Anonymousreply 106September 20, 2019 5:39 AM

Does the press already have an answer for this Trump crime?

by Anonymousreply 107September 20, 2019 5:55 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if R99 is right; Hunter is a loser & fuck up.

I'm sure that Barr would very much *like* to cover all this up, but in less than 24 hours, the WP has even more information about the nature of the discussion (if not the specifics), so I have to think more will come out whether Barr likes it or not.

by Anonymousreply 108September 20, 2019 11:14 AM

R108 is the real loser

by Anonymousreply 109September 20, 2019 2:37 PM

Do you know how we know the allegations about Biden’s son are lies? Because Trump was trying to use $250 million of taxpayer dollars to force Ukraine to invent a story about Biden’s son, that’s how. If Hunter had actually done something wrong, why the massive bribe?

by Anonymousreply 110September 20, 2019 2:58 PM

all you stupid Russians. The Biden story is not working and he probably won't be the candidate anyways. Trump is up shit creek and not Biden.

by Anonymousreply 111September 24, 2019 9:09 PM

[quote] R110: Do you know how we know the allegations about Biden’s son are lies?

First and foremost, the Right lies. It’s part of their brand. I don’t trust anything they say. That’s a waste of time, chasing their nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 112September 25, 2019 10:52 PM

OMG, when sitting with the new President of Ukraine, Trump says:

“I gave you anti-tank busters, and Obama was sending you pillows.” (Congress sent weapons. Trump tried to block them.)

“If you remember, you lost Crimea during a different Administration, not during the Trump Administration.” Trump blames Obama, but not Putin, the aggressor. He won’t say how he would have prevented the taking, and wants to reverse sanctions put on Russia due to this aggression. He’s nonsensical.

“I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem.” So condescending.

He’s obsessed with President Obama, and he’s an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 113September 26, 2019 12:42 AM

Trump says he’s for transparency regarding the whistleblower information. No doubt, another lie.

by Anonymousreply 114September 26, 2019 12:46 AM

The Mooch tweeted today that more whistle blowers are about to come forward.

by Anonymousreply 115September 30, 2019 12:45 AM

I believe there’sa lot more to that “hope you get together with Putin”, and it will END Trump. I think we’ll learn Trump was also doing Putin’s bidding in defiance of US stand on Russia.

Sry if this is repetitive, I lose track of what I read/write where.

by Anonymousreply 116September 30, 2019 2:25 AM

r116, well, how considerate of you to just keep screaming into the void while not even paying enough attention to know whether you're repeating yourself or not. What an outstanding contribution to the conversation you must think you're offering to the rest of us. You have no self-respect and no respect for anyone else. You live your life on auto-pilot. You're an intellectual sloth.

by Anonymousreply 117September 30, 2019 2:33 AM

Calm down, r117.

The media certainly knows more than they report. They usually want two independent and credible sources before they publish. Although Trump complains about anonymous sources, it’s been this way for decades.

An example is the Trump pee tape and report. It was originally embargoed because it was salacious or lacked a second source. But you can bet that every journalist who came upon it, read it.

by Anonymousreply 118September 30, 2019 3:28 AM

Maybe hit up another half tab of Prozac R117 and leave the discussion to the grown-ups, K?

by Anonymousreply 119September 30, 2019 10:26 AM

Never mind R117, I see you're the OP of this thread. I'll go find grown-ups elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 120September 30, 2019 10:37 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!