Whistleblower 'didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications' between Trump and Ukraine

Not what I had in mind, but a good one, funny in an odd way.

 

You heard wrong.

 

we will see, maybe, maybe not

it would be great if they were though

 

This person saw disturbing conduct involving trump and named several admin witnesses!
This could be juicy!

 

Salsa is fat free.

 

they are listened to by CIA agents and a transcript is made

 

the person saw nothing, had no first hand knowledge.

 

What a coincidence and profound revelation. So is water, as long as it is not heavy water.

 

There are privacy issues involved when the president or anyone else records a conversation. Trump may tape some conversations but not all. I don't think presidents regularly tape conversations and haven't since Nixon?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-tapes-comey/527655/

 

I think you're generally correct on this point. I'm wondering if there is not statue law on recording Presidential activities for historical purposes? It may be just a policy? Didn't that issue come up during the Clinton e-mail investigation?

 

they may have the computer translate the conversation and delete the recording, not sure

 

It seems odd but it is no different in courts. One would think it would be much easier and more efficient to use a tape recorder than a court reporter who transcribes what is supposedly accurate but is it really 100%? Transcriptions have been accepted as being legal and true since the days of Prohibition when the practice was first challenged. Back then was the first time Federal agents began using "new" telephone wire tap technology against suspected gangs and bootleggers. There were no tape recorders back in the 1920's so federal agents wrote down everything they listened to. The practice was challenged by the criminal gang's lawyers.

I believe the issue was finally settled by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that hand typed wire tap transcriptions could be entered as evidence in legal cases. The practice still exists (eg. hand written form 302 memorialization of FBI interviews, etc.). One would think that at a minimum, a tape recording as a backup might also be useful but apparently the privacy issues involved with electronic taping of certain conversations still presents a strong argument against the practice without consent of all parties and other considerations.

 

I believe the practice is allowed if all privacy laws are observed. Certain foreign countries prohibit the practice even more than in the US. It may not be worth the effort for most presidents. Perhaps some presidents however have secretly taped some conversations, legal or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws

Also: US Privacy Act of 1974

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

 

Thanks.

 

Trump tends to explain one lie with a bigger one. His circle will grow smaller. He's pulled Pence into this, as well as the DNI and the AG. Giuliani, meanwhile, has pulled Pompeo into it. The DNI had just taken Dan Coats place and probably had just received a briefing on the Trump administration's general claim of executive privilege regarding all Executive Branch communications and went to the WH Counsel for guidance, who (in turn) apparently sent him to the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel for a ruling. They apparently left it up to the DNI...saying he was under no compulsion to tell Congress. He apparently told this to the IG, who told him he intended to go to Congress anyhow and, at that point, the DNI agreed with the IG.

Seems like we're headed for a Court decision on "executive privilege." I believe past decisions have upheld the President's right to the privilege, but ruled that it must be claimed regarding particular situations and that no "blanket privilege" exists.

Without the specific claim, the Admiral may have gotten bad OLC advice. The OLC advice seems to have been based on the supposition that the President isn't in the chain-of-command for "intelligence" and that the situation wasn't "urgent." However, the whistleblower was, presumably, in intelligence and that's for whom the statute was written...to protect the whistleblower, not the President. "Urgency" is a relative term and it would be interesting to learn of their logic on that...which we'll probably hear.

 

I think having both is wise, so if there is a question one can go back to the recordings

 

Even doctors are reluctant to switch from paper records to electronic. I personally make backups of nearly every important document. Some I'm required to keep, others I just do. I don't have anything to hide. Others may prefer to have a smaller foot print so for whatever reason, there is little or no paper trail.

 

Did cloudstrike tell you all of this

 

come on now, that is no better than asking a poster if Russia told them something

 

that is because systems update so fast, the system one doctor uses today may not be used in the future, so paper is often cheaper and more reliable - not the big hospitals go digital

google just canceled "works with nest" so all those devices that used to work together, do so no more, nothing is safe from upgrades, especially in a world of cloud computing

all the ebooks and movies,music one buys from say Amazon, if Amazon goes BK, what happens to the books you own, not the same as a paper based book

 

As an aside, I don't think most realize the most records including medical records (paper or electronic) are not kept indefinitely. The average for medical record retention is 8-10 years. Some may be less and some may keep only partial records longer. When I was made aware of that factoid, I requested my doctor send me all my records so I have them on my server even if they don't.

If nothing else, redundancy is a smart practice. Most data centers back up to another server or data storage facility remotely located from each other. In case of disaster in one part of the country, hopefully the backup somewhere else is useable.