Oldbear83 said:
BrooksBearLives said:
YoakDaddy said:
BrooksBearLives said:
YoakDaddy said:
quash said:
Secondhand does not equal a leak.
Simple logic says yes because firsthand wasn't authorized to talk.
This is so dumb on its face. Linda Tripp was second-hand, too.
It doesn't matter what the whistleblower saw, it matters if it's true.
And in the Trump's WB case, the WB's details have been proven false in light of published transcripts.
What? What has been "proven false?"
There was quid pro quo. There were hidden transcripts. What has been proven false?
There was no quid pro quo. The transcript shows this.
The transcript was treated exactly the same way Obama handled his communications with foreign leaders. Again, nothing wrong with that.
What has been proven false, is you.
The transcript when read in context and understanding nuance does not prove or disprove a quid pro quo. It certainly suggest one to anyone who is not willfully ignorant.
But the point that the President's worshipers fails to grasp about the danger the inquiry presents is that there are lines of investigation that the transcript opens up. For the uninitiated this is how it works:
Head of State calls do not happen on a whim. The President and his national security team talk about the call before and afterwards. Those discussions or briefings include country and region specific experts in the administration. The National Security Adviser is almost always present or listening to the call. The Secretary of State has the option to listen or be present. The calls are not recorded-that practice stopped after the revelation of the Nixon tapes. Instead there are two or three note takers who act as "court reporters" for the call. After the call is over, these not takers produce a memo about the call. The "transcript" the White House produced is the memo from the July 25th call.
Call memos that do not involve national security matters are electronically stored on a server. Call memos that do involve national security matters are stored on a different server that is much more secure and is accessible to far fewer people.
Following the call the National Security team will direct actions consistent with the President's desires following the call.
Many have noted that this head of state call was stored on the more secure "national security matters" server despite the fact no national security matters were discussed. The President's worshipers counter (correctly) that this one not the first time that happened. The practice started after the substance of calls with the presidents of Mexico and Austria were leaked and turned out to be embarrassing to the President. In the Mexico call the President admitted that he never was serious when he said Mexico would pay for the wall. Don't remember the problem with the Austria call. But not all Head of State calls are moved to the secure server. So the first point is that someone around the president made the decision that there was something about the call that was potentially politically damaging.
The second point is that the briefings before the call and the directions after the call may involve something more explicit than the transcript itself. Interestingly, John Bolton might be a key player. Given the way his tenure as NSA ended, I am not sure that the President can count on Bolton to take one for the team. Another key player could be the Ukraine specialist diplomat who resigned as all this became public. That guy was brought on by Rex Tillerson and is though to be loyal to him. Again, not sure that is who the President wants keeping his secrets.
Maybe there is nothing else there or maybe the President can sweep it under the rug. But this is not as simple as just reading the transcript and trying to say what it means.
