Trump's communications with a foreign leader sparked whistleblower complaint

Foreign leaders I assume would expect their private conversation with our President to remain confidential. These conversations should absolutely never be released to the public just to satiate partisan pressure.

 

Has he released that clear overwhelming evidence he claimed he had of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians yet?

 

Unless it's applicable, the Foreign Leaders parts can be redacted (I would hope)...

And we'd never get the full conversation... just the parts relevant to the complaint... The parts where Trump cannot pronounce the leaders name can stay secret forever...

 

We know it as the Mueller report....

 

Liberals before Trump: "We don't want no sinking Constitution"
Liberals after Trump: "We REALLY don't want no stinking Constitution"

 

Wasn't there and he claimed HE had it long before the Mueller report and now when asked he refuses to answer.

 

Really? I think you are trying to construct an argument that falls flat in the face of reality. Any leader of any major nation, or any major corporation, is so concerned with their conversations being made public that they rehearse and speak from talking points, they put parameters around who hears what and who doesn't (security clearances and whatnot). So no, I think you are quite mistaken. I suspect that when someone has a phone call with the president of the US, they are more than aware it could become public.

Of course the real reason he won't make it public isn't because Trump is worried about others, that goes against everything he stands for. You know, himself.

The law isn't partisan and while it doesn't require public disclosure, the IG did say it met the criteria to be disclosed to Congress. This is a well educated, well qualified, Trump appointee. Why should HE be ignored or dismissed?

 

By sinking constitution I presume you are referring to the USS Constitution? It hasn't sunk, don't worry.

 

We all need the details before we know for certain if there was a law broken, a moral 'law' violated, a security violation , or a great act of presidential stupidity committed.

To blindly defend Our Dear Leader as you aparently are or to condemn him to the fires of eternal hell is premature.

Yet Giuliani seemed to come 1mm away from admitting that POTUS ODL did something dirty.

 

But without the foreign leaders name any quote would be meaningless. And with their name press would go screaming to whoever that person was for more details, thus compromising and putting pressure on that person who believed they were speaking in confidence with our President. Would be a horrible precedent. Let private conversation remain private. If the discussion is determined by the person who has the ultimate say in the matter, to rise to the level of urgent concern then that conversation should be relayed to appropriate persons. If not then so be it.

 

Oh, he's condemned to the fires of eternal hell already... stuff like this is just to determine where he has to sit...

 

If a law had been broken I would have already been referred to Congress. The DOJ and OLC have already reviewed does not meet the legal standard or requirement to send the complaint to Congress. The IG testified for three hours about it yesterday and Schiff came out with nothing.

 

"sTinking"

 

Why do you think such conversations are BORN highly classified?

 

There it is. Of course, it's still just as untrue as the USS Constitution SINKING...

 

LOL... we'd know the name... I think that would be obvious, if not outright stated....

We could just redact their parts of the relevant conversation and all parts of the non relevant conversation...

And who has the ultimate say in the matter, IYHO??

 

Is that his determination to make or does that authority fall to Maguire who says it doesn't meet that threshold? We don't get to pick the person whose answer we like to make that determination. That question will be not be ignored but will be asked of Maguire when he goes before the committee.

 

Congress doesn't have any authority to legally charge people. So Schiff can't come out of there and walk up to the White house and arrest Trump or anything. The DOJ and OLC don't have any reason to not refer it to Congress IF there's nothing to worry about. The referral wouldn't be public and if there's nothing in there, then they just gave Congress nothing. So why hold onto it? Does the axiom that the innocent have nothing to hide no longer applies because your guy is in the White House?

 

It appears that Maguire ultimately has that say based upon what has occurred thus far, but I have not reviewed the legal documents that make said determination. Perhaps you have that information.

 

Take it up with a liberal. You are talking to a libertarian. By the way, I've literally had several conservations with Trump supporters, on the forums and elsewhere, where they tried calling parts of the Constitution irrelevant, particularly when it comes to Congress's powers to control the purse, set taxes, and declare war, all of which Trumpists want to see fall under Trump's authority, with no oversight. But if you care so much about the Constitution, I guess you'll join me any time now in confronting Trump supporters on these points. Any time now.

 

So they can make secret plans and promises, of course. What do you think classified is about? Protecting one's self. It's not about protecting you or the American public. And again, it's done because they know full well that they will say things that are of interest to the voting public in countries where we elect our own leaders. Denying full information is a great way to get re-elected for anyone. The real question is what are you defending right now? What principle? What ethical or moral ground are you standing on? The US president said something that made his own appointed IG want to refer it to Congress. That's not a common occurrence in case you were wondering. Aren't you at all curious, legal or not, or how impactful or not, what Trump said that prompted this? You should be. If you aren't, then I go back to what exactly are you defending?

 

You do get to pick that person, indirectly, by your vote for president. I don't think Maguire is going to have an answer because he consulted the White House and the DOJ. He didn't make a decision and he's going to testify to that by basically providing a non-answer answer.

 

Whistleblower or Mole?

 

So you are good with them handing them over to Congress in public so we can all read them and come to the same conclusion Maguire did...?

 

For a former member of the military--whose chain of command probably talked to foreign leaders about many things and made promises you had no need to know about--pretty much stupid. Name the fracking WAPO MOLE NOW, immediately reveal the MOLE's name, address, phone number...! We all need the details of that WAPO mole first!