Trump goes Mob Boss

[Sam]

So when the acting ICE director Thomas Homan says that criminal aliens have been released rather than turned over to ICE, with 10,000 committing more crimes - he is lying?

Homan is the former acting ICE director and, yeah, given Homan's record, I would not take a single word he says as true without documented, objective evidence to back it up.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

When you must twist the meaning of a post, you clearly can't deal with the truth of the post itself. Whistle-blowers are protected from any form of retaliation. If and when it becomes a legal or criminal matter and evidence has been found of wrongdoing as a result of the whistle-blower drawing attention to potentially illegal behavior, THEN, IF the whistle-blower has evidence to present that meets legal standards, Trump would have a right to know his identity.

A whistle-blower is not necessarily an actual accuser. A whistle-blower is someone with knowledge of potential undesirable or illegal activity. The reason they are protected is that we want people to come forward when shady things are happening without fear of retaliation so that the shady activity can be investigated and then if there is substance the shady activity can be brought to light and corrected before it does irreparable damage.

Criminals, especially those in power, are smart enough to conceal their activity or mask their true intentions. Whistle-blower laws exist to help reduce the probability they can get away with it by allowing those around them with a conscience and that see enough to know something is amiss to raise a red flag and allow those with the power to push back to investigate.

Trump wants to crush this person. People like Trump are the reason we protect whistle-blowers from retaliation.


Jim

[JimL]

So, why change your ways now?

[lilpixieofterror]

So, why change your ways now?

[JimL]

Okay log eye.

[seer]

Homan is the former acting ICE director and, yeah, given Homan's record, I would not take a single word he says as true without documented, objective evidence to back it up.

--Sam

Except he knows way more about this than you and I also linked the ICE web site:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Matthew T. Albence held a White House press briefing Thursday to explain how sanctuary policies threaten public safety and called on the public to hold their local lawmakers accountable. The briefing made clear that local jurisdictions across the U.S. that refuse to cooperate with ICE are complicit in the crimes committed by aliens who ICE could have otherwise been arrested and removedAcross the United States, several jurisdictions refuse to honor detainers and instead choose to willingly release criminal offenders back into their local communities where they are free to offend.

Acting Director Albence made clear that state and local jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement not only betray their duty to protect public safety, but force ICE to be more visible in those areas.

https://www.ice.gov/spotlight/declined-detainers

[oxmixmudd]

I'm just telling you what the lawyers are saying, that Scott Pelly who originally reported the story "completely misinterpreted the content of our letter" and was "literally making stuff up".

Are you trying to tell me that the whisteblower's own lawyers don't know what they're talking about? Maybe they're part of the conspiracy, too!

yes they do know what they are talking about:

1) Trumps tweets and spoken words have endangered their client
2) There is a bounty to anyone that divulges the name of their client
3) They have asked for protection for their client

These are the simple facts. This is the content of the letter. Whatever they mean by 'misinterpreted', it doesn't negate these 3 summary points from the letter.

Which goes directly to the point which you will not admit. This person has been threatened by the actions and words of the President of the US - Mr. Mob Boss.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay log eye.

[lilpixieofterror]

yes they do know what they are talking about:

1) Trumps tweets and spoken words have endangered their client
2) There is a bounty to anyone that divulges the name of their client
3) They have asked for protection for their client

These are the simple facts. This is the content of the letter. Whatever they mean by 'misinterpreted', it doesn't negate these 3 summary points from the letter.

Which goes directly to the point which you will not admit. This person has been threatened by the actions and words of the President of the US - Mr. Mob Boss.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

yes they do know what they are talking about:

1) Trumps tweets and spoken words have endangered their client
2) There is a bounty to anyone that divulges the name of their client
3) They have asked for protection for their client

These are the simple facts. This is the content of the letter. Whatever they mean by 'misinterpreted', it doesn't negate these 3 summary points from the letter.

Which goes directly to the point which you will not admit. This person has been threatened by the actions and words of the President of the US - Mr. Mob Boss.

Jim

So despite the fact that the lawyers have said on the record that this is a complete misinterpretation of the content of their letter, you're moving full speed ahead with your "truth over facts" narrative.

This is why it's futile to discuss anything Trump related with you.

[JimL]

This just goes to show that you are not open to evidence. You can't get past your bias. It isn't hearsay, you're mimicking the talking points, the evidence is in the presidents actions and in the transcript itself, regardless of what you think of the complaintant/whistleblower.

[Cow Poke]

This just goes to show that you are not open to evidence. You can't get past your bias. It isn't hearsay, you're mimicking the talking points....

irony.jpg

[JimL]

A sitting president can't be indicted, Lilpix. His trial takes place in Congress through the impeachment process.

[JimL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39994[/ATTACH]

You left out this part, CP. "the evidence is in the presidents actions and in the transcript itself." You guys can clamor on about it coming second hand all you want, how ever the evidence came to light, it came to light.

[lilpixieofterror]

This just goes to show that you are not open to evidence. You can't get past your bias. It isn't hearsay, you're mimicking the talking points, the evidence is in the presidents actions and in the transcript itself, regardless of what you think of the complaintant/whistleblower.