2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on October 02, 2019, 11:04:55 PM
-
I have been watching this news story develop slowly and trying to digest it carefully.
It might be a witch hunt and it might not be, there is simply not enough information known to the public by which we can make any sort of real judgement about the complaint. So we just have to sit and wait while both sides grandstand and see what comes out of all of this. The whistleblower law and process exist for a reason and they must be allowed to work either way.
Having said that I think Trump has said something extremely stupid and risky, well above his usual odd comments.
Trump stated that the person who released the information should be treated like a spy and dealt with like in the old days. This comment is undermining the whistleblower process and Trump is walking a very fine line here given his comments could easily be interpreted as intimidating/threatening a witness. At the very least this comment is highly unprofessional and disrespectful to a law that tries to serve as a check against an abusive government and at the worst Trump is intimidating anyone who might testify against him and suggesting violence against the whistleblower or anyone who helped him.
I have repeatedly said to others that the Ukraine thing and the Russia thing do not have enough proof to justify impeaching Trump but with this comment of his he just gave the democrats the best argument for impeachment yet. And unlike the Ukraine or Russia stories, this is a lot easier to prove. Trump's best defense in this matter would probably end up being the argument that Trump always talks like this and means nothing by it.
-
Make sure you watch the correct stations. So the "whistleblower" heard from someone else a story. Usually if someone blows the whistle, it's first hand knowledge. Not like friend of a friend. And the guy who's testifying (Schieff) is making up a transcript. Trump has someone who copies word for word all his conversations. He's not stupid. He also knows that on both ends, someone is probably listening in. So a nothing burger to distract from the actual guild Bidens and the Epstein story.
Many have been fooled by WMD's, then again by the Russia Hoax and will be fooled again due to TDS.
Ask yourself why is it the fake news puts once again Trump in the spot light, but not the sketchy parties (Biden's)? Fool me once, shame on me...
*Edit
Forgot to mention the whistleblower rule was changed in August of this year....I wonder why...#tinfoil
-
Make sure you watch the correct stations. So the "whistleblower" heard from someone else a story. Usually if someone blows the whistle, it's first hand knowledge. Not like friend of a friend. And the guy who's testifying (Schieff) is making up a transcript. Trump has someone who copies word for word all his conversations. He's not stupid. He also knows that on both ends, someone is probably listening in. So a nothing burger to distract from the actual guild Bidens and the Epstein story.
Many have been fooled by WMD's, then again by the Russia Hoax and will be fooled again due to TDS.
Ask yourself why is it the fake news puts once again Trump in the spot light, but not the sketchy parties (Biden's)? Fool me once, shame on me...
*Edit
Forgot to mention the whistleblower rule was changed in August of this year....I wonder why...#tinfoil
Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.
But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?
-
Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.
But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?
Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]
-
Part of the whistleblower's complaint is firsthand knowledge and part is secondhand/hearsay. Now when it comes to hearsay it is still of evidentiary value. Hearsay and secondhand knowledge is not as strong as firsthand knowledge but that doesn't mean it can be disregarded. What fake news is there here, the news isn't making up what was contained in the transcript? They aren't making up that there is a whistleblower complaint lodged.
But again, my issue here is not whether Trump's conversation contained a violation of law or not, my issue is with what Trump said about the whistleblower. Even if the whistleblower is lying or a crackpot, Trump's comments are still absolutely unacceptable. The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected. Imagine it was Obama who made the same statement of an implied threat to a whistleblower, don't you think republicans would be flipping out over it?
The GOP has never backed up Trump for anything. Look at the fake Russia story, they never came together as a group calling for an investigation into anyone involved. NOr did they for the wire tapping of Trump Tower, etc...You did have a few members say something, but not the entire party like how the entire DNC goes after Trump.
Trump calls it like it is and knows BS when he sees it. Remember he knows all his conversations are being recorded by someone on either side. So you think he's dumb enough to say something that would get him in trouble? This is another attempt by the DNC who lost a rigged election and a fake Russia story they fed sheep for 2 years that cost millions of dollars. TDS at it's finest. The kicker is, instead of investigating the real crook, the DNC is calling for an investigation into Trump. Many awoke people already knew years ago about Biden and Ukrain. So this isn't new. Same awoke people knew of the BS Russia story, the rigged DNC nomination and many other events.
What about Pelosi's son who had some involvement with Ukraine? Bet that wasn't on the fake news yet. Why do you think she's calling again for an impeachment.
-
Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]
heads
-
The GOP has never backed up Trump for anything. Look at the fake Russia story, they never came together as a group calling for an investigation into anyone involved. NOr did they for the wire tapping of Trump Tower, etc...You did have a few members say something, but not the entire party like how the entire DNC goes after Trump.
Trump calls it like it is and knows BS when he sees it. Remember he knows all his conversations are being recorded by someone on either side. So you think he's dumb enough to say something that would get him in trouble? This is another attempt by the DNC who lost a rigged election and a fake Russia story they fed sheep for 2 years that cost millions of dollars. TDS at it's finest. The kicker is, instead of investigating the real crook, the DNC is calling for an investigation into Trump. Many awoke people already knew years ago about Biden and Ukrain. So this isn't new. Same awoke people knew of the BS Russia story, the rigged DNC nomination and many other events.
What about Pelosi's son who had some involvement with Ukraine? Bet that wasn't on the fake news yet. Why do you think she's calling again for an impeachment.
How can you actually suggest Trump is smart enough to not say things that will get him in trouble? Most of the issues democrats are looking to crucify him over are the dumb things he has said. Asking for a favor from Ukraine, making a threat against a whistleblower, potential obstruction issues, etc etc. Yes, Trump is saying things that are getting him in trouble. The Russia story wasn't fake but the evidence just didn't end up proving what the democrats wanted it to prove but even then Trump said dumb things that just fed the conspiracy belief. Trump made things worse for himself.
And the GOP is not obligated to follow Trump and jump to his defense. The democrats complain that the GOP leaps to Trump's defense too often so I don't know why you think it isn't often enough. Most of the republicans are smarter than to shout off like Trump and can take more realistic actions when some allegation looks political.
I don't know any details about Pelosi's son's involvement in Ukraine yet so I cannot comment but what does that have to do with Trump's comments about the whistleblower? Lets say there is some actual illegal activity by Pelosi or by her son, does that excuse Trump? That answer doesn't really inspire confidence that the interest is in finding the truth but rather looking for something to justify an already held belief. Trump says "look over there" and then we forget about what he did wrong.
-
Hahaha.
The guy that's for red flag laws talking about how [size=78%]The whistleblower process is important and its integrity must be protected.[/size]
Do you have an actual thought of substance on the issue or you just like shallow cheap shots?
-
I don't know any details about Pelosi's son's involvement in Ukraine yet so I cannot comment but what does that have to do with Trump's comments about the whistleblower? Lets say there is some actual illegal activity by Pelosi or by her son, does that excuse Trump? That answer doesn't really inspire confidence that the interest is in finding the truth but rather looking for something to justify an already held belief. Trump says "look over there" and then we forget about what he did wrong.
Well, according to your Hirono-esque logic, one must investigate both otherwise you’re a hypocrite. But if it’s Pelosi, it’s about interest in finding the truth as looking to “justifying an already held belief”?
-
Do you have an actual thought of substance on the issue or you just like shallow cheap shots?
it's not worded as such, but it's a legitimate question
do you feel your opinion about whistleblower protection is consistent with your view on red flag laws?
-
Trump does say mean things, but he is still president and not in jail. So when i say "trouble", i mean gets him either arrested or kicked out of the presidency. Hurt feelings doesnt count. And how many things have he said that opened the door to more investigations and arrest. Ill give you a hint. Puerto Rician government officals arrested a few months ago...he said nasty things about them prior to.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Well, according to your Hirono-esque logic, one must investigate both otherwise you’re a hypocrite. But if it’s Pelosi, it’s about interest in finding the truth as looking to “justifying an already held belief”?
I am refraining from commenting about Pelosi's son because I don't know anything about the case. I never said we shouldn't investigate and I am not against it, I just don't know enough to make a call on the issue.
Regardless, it is completely off topic.
-
it's not worded as such, but it's a legitimate question
do you feel your opinion about whistleblower protection is consistent with your view on red flag laws?
I don't see how whistleblower protection is comparable to red flag laws so I wouldn't consider it consistent or inconsistent.
Do you not think we need to protect the whistleblower process? Do you not think it is problematic for Trump to threaten whistle blowers (even if the threat is not a clear and direct threat?
-
Trump does say mean things, but he is still president and not in jail. So when i say "trouble", i mean gets him either arrested or kicked out of the presidency. Hurt feelings doesnt count. And how many things have he said that opened the door to more investigations and arrest. Ill give you a hint. Puerto Rician government officals arrested a few months ago...he said nasty things about them prior to.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Well obviously nothing has got him put in jail or dethroned yet but I would say the two things in the news are pretty good candidates.
Personally I would say his comments about Ukraine are pushing the boundaries but it would be hard to prove in court criminality but as I said I think he crossed the line with his threat against the whistleblower.
-
I don't see how whistleblower protection is comparable to red flag laws so I wouldn't consider it consistent or inconsistent.
Maybe because neither the blower or the complainant in a red flag will be held liable for false intel?
-
Well obviously nothing has got him put in jail or dethroned yet but I would say the two things in the news are pretty good candidates.
Personally I would say his comments about Ukraine are pushing the boundaries but it would be hard to prove in court criminality but as I said I think he crossed the line with his threat against the whistleblower.
The blower is making stuff up and he knows it. The DNC knows it, but sheeple don't know it. Awoke people know it. He knows all his calls are being recorded in 1 way or another. But he's just trolling the DNC before the call is released. So is this a good candidate for him to be impeached? Like how Russia was also a good candidate for impeachment? Like how WMD's were a good candidate to invade Iraq? Fool you once, shame on you, fool you 2,3,4 times then it's time to wake up.
-
1) I am refraining from commenting about Pelosi's son because I don't know anything about the case. 2)I never said we shouldn't investigate and I am not against it, I just don't know enough to make a call on the issue.
3) Regardless, it is completely off topic.
1) Are you serious? When has your lack of knowledge about something previously prevented you from commenting?
2) Ok, but my point, again, is your hypocrisy. Which some others have pointed out, but you seem to quickly dismiss. . .
3) Again, my point is the hypocrisy. Both yours and with politicians in GENERAL, hence applies to all of this whistleblower games that seem like teenage BS. You brought it up in the Biden thread, yet here it's not on topic. That's the whole point. . .
Steve Hilton: What no one has been reporting about the Trump-Ukraine impeachment saga
Understood it's OPINION, not facts. But try to look at this in an unbiased perspective.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-reporting-trump-ukraine-impeachment-saga (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-reporting-trump-ukraine-impeachment-saga)
They've been wanting to get President Trump since 2016. They want to remove this democratically-elected president by non-democratic means, regardless of the evidence. It was so helpful of Hillary to confirm that last week. And so much for their pious lectures on democracy and the rule of law.
Last Sunday we went through the impeachment charges: Inviting foreign meddling and a quid pro quo of military aid. The foreign meddling claim is a joke. It happens every day in Washington through foreign government lobbying. The Democrats are up to their necks in foreign meddling.
Nancy Pelosi took money from Ukraine lobbyists. Chuck Schumer took money from Saudi Arabia and Mexico. These sanctimonious charlatans on their high horse over foreign interference in our democracy have no problem with it when it's donations to their campaigns and jobs for their relatives and when it's asking Ukraine for dirt on Trump, as Democratic senators did last year. And, of course, when it's funding a dossier to bring Trump down.
In any case, elected leaders always wear their government hats and that of a politician. The idea that Donald Trump committed an abuse of power by bringing politics into a foreign relationship is a joke. They all do it. Trump is just more open about it.
The reason the Democrats and the ruling class are so up in arms about it is that it's exposing a central feature of their swampy business model.
If you go back to the Biden thread, investigate or don't investigate. Whatever. This type of stuff only serves to uncover more of the swamp and dealings, which I think is justified. But justified in that all of them are dirty, even more so with those slinging the mud.
-
Forgot, Kerrys son and Romneys son also...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Forgot, Kerrys son and Romneys son also...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I guess Hirono is "safe" then. She doesn't have a son. . .
-
IG could not explain 18-day window between Ukraine call and whistleblower complaint: sources
Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, in testimony to House lawmakers about the whistleblower complaint on President Trump's controversial phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, could not explain what accounted for the 18-day window between the July 25 call and the Aug. 12 complaint filing — or when exactly the whistleblower contacted a key Democrat's staff, sources familiar with the testimony told Fox News.
The whistleblower's contact with Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff's staff before filing the complaint in mid-August has prompted renewed scrutiny of Schiff.
The top Democrat previously said “we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower,” but his office later revised the claim, saying that Schiff himself "does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason.
Sources familiar with Atkinson's closed-door, transcribed interview Friday with members of the House Intelligence Committee also noted that Atkinson said the whistleblower did not disclose the contact – during that 18-day window – with Schiff's office, as Fox News first reported Friday. Sources said Atkinson testified that the whistleblower, in filing the complaint, left "blank" a section in which he or she could have disclosed that congressional contact.
Be careful when you dig, you never know what you're gonna uncover. . .
Not saying that the above is true. Not saying that Trump is innocent. That said, I suspect before too long, this will get deeper and the tendrils will go where those who called for "open and transparent" process don't want it to go. . .
-
IG could not explain 18-day window between Ukraine call and whistleblower complaint: sources
Be careful when you dig, you never know what you're gonna uncover. . .
Not saying that the above is true. Not saying that Trump is innocent. That said, I suspect before too long, this will get deeper and the tendrils will go where those who called for "open and transparent" process don't want it to go. . .
4D chess. Marines activated for use of deadly force on US soil...something is brewing. #tinfoil.
-
4D chess. Marines activated for use of deadly force on US soil...something is brewing. #tinfoil.
I saw foil on sale at Sam's this past weekend. You should stock up. ;D
-
I saw foil on sale at Sam's this past weekend. You should stock up. ;D
A true tin foil user is always stocked up and has no need to buy more.
-
1) Are you serious? When has your lack of knowledge about something previously prevented you from commenting?
2) Ok, but my point, again, is your hypocrisy. Which some others have pointed out, but you seem to quickly dismiss. . .
3) Again, my point is the hypocrisy. Both yours and with politicians in GENERAL, hence applies to all of this whistleblower games that seem like teenage BS. You brought it up in the Biden thread, yet here it's not on topic. That's the whole point. . .
Exactly why I put the HPD troll on ignore. He appears to be here only to provoke responses that may allow HPD intervention.
-
Exactly why I put the HPD troll on ignore. He appears to be here only to provoke responses that may allow HPD intervention.
I should know better. I’ve had many convos with folks like Inspector about this. I should learn more from him. Shoot more and post less. Which reminds me, I should make time to shoot with those guys again. Lots of wisdom to be shared and not BS.
-
I guess Hirono is "safe" then. She doesn't have a son. . .
Thank God! One sh-t head is enough! Anyway she was and still is butt ugly and who would want it hit that anyway... ;)
-
Maybe because neither the blower or the complainant in a red flag will be held liable for false intel?
Someone who files a false red flag complaint can be held liable, especially if they lie under oath to the judge.
I don't know whether it is illegal to lie on a whistleblower complaint but it is a felony to lie to a federal law enforcement officer. But even if you take that into account they are still not very comparable because in a red flag complaint someone actually has their rights taken away. A whistleblower complaint doesn't put anyone in jail so a false complaint doesn't revoke anyone's rights.
Also keep in mind there is a difference between incorrect information a information known not to be true. (mistake vs lie)
-
The blower is making stuff up and he knows it.
What evidence is there that the whistleblower is making up stuff? Given that there are some actual records to go along with the claim it would seem pretty dumb to completely fabricate a story.
What I have to ask is why you are so quick to believe the whistleblower is making stuff up before you even heard everything they had to say? How is that at all trying to find the truth?
And moreover, even if Trump believes the whistleblower to be fabricating a story, that still doesn't justify him threatening the whistleblower which is the key issue here that you don't seem to want to address.
-
1) Are you serious? When has your lack of knowledge about something previously prevented you from commenting?
All the time. I often clearly state when I don't know much or enough to make a judgement.
2) Ok, but my point, again, is your hypocrisy. Which some others have pointed out, but you seem to quickly dismiss. . .
3) Again, my point is the hypocrisy. Both yours and with politicians in GENERAL, hence applies to all of this whistleblower games that seem like teenage BS. You brought it up in the Biden thread, yet here it's not on topic. That's the whole point. . .
I started a new topic so the threat against the whistleblower could be addressed on its own. Would you prefer I kept it in the Biden thread just so I avoid some label of hypocrisy? Besides, I never excused Biden of anything so you are making a bit of a strawman here especially since Biden didn't threaten anyone. Only thing I said in the other thread was that the nature of the complaint against Trump is very similar in nature to the complaint against Biden and therefore any argument to investigate one justified investigating the other. Anything else would just be a double standard.
If you go back to the Biden thread, investigate or don't investigate. Whatever. This type of stuff only serves to uncover more of the swamp and dealings, which I think is justified. But justified in that all of them are dirty, even more so with those slinging the mud.
Again, I am not against digging into Biden's dealings involving his son and Ukraine or China. But when I point out that Trump is threatening a whistleblower, why is your first reaction to change the subject to Democrat corruption?
-
On second thought. Nevermind. . .
-
The only actual whistleblower is named President Donald J. Trump. He released the official transcript of the call, and was actually a party to the call.
The first so-called whistleblower was not a party to the call -- no firsthand knowledge. Yes, anyone can make a complaint to the IG, but in cases of hearsay reports, the IG must investigate to find a person with firsthand knowledge of the details contained in the complaint to provide corroboration. That wasn't done, because nobody was willing to lie about the contents of the call -- i.e. quid-pro-quo and demanding dirt on Biden for political reasons.
No other person has come forward with any firsthand knowledge that contradicts or extends the information made public by President Trump.
Trump defused the entire thing by releasing the TRUTH for all to see. If Pelosi had waited 24 hours instead of trusting Schiff finally had a "smoking gun" this time, I believe she would have never called for an inquiry.
The dems in the House are not calling for a vote on the inquiry, because that would (1) force all the Dems to go on record to support this craziness or not, and (2) give the Republicans in the House the ability to subpoena witnesses the Dems refuse to call who may put this entire witch hunt to rest. Not holding a vote on Impeachment and excluding the minority party from all aspects of the process stinks of a political coup. They are pushing the sentence (impeachment and removal from office) long before any evidence of an actual crime is offered.
This "scandal" gives nothing burgers a bad name.
If Joe Biden committed murder on the White House lawn, is Trump not able to have the Secret Service arrest him? Does running for office shield a candidate from investigations into their past wrong-doings out of fear the incumbent would be accused of "digging up dirt for political reasons?"
Didn't seem to stop the Obama administration from going after the Trump campaign.
Trump's been investigated since before he defeated Hildabeast. Seems everything he has done has been called "abuse of power" as a default accusation. At some point, the investigating has to end, and the real work of governing and serving the interests of the nation, not the party, have to take precedence.
-
Same story, the 2nd wb was the source for the 1st wb and still no 1st hand knowledge. Kind of like how the fbi justfied FISA.
What makes Trump diff for calling out the wb is he has recorded call of the so called incident. So he and anyone listening knows the wb is full of it. Another Russia type story that only fools believe. Stop watching and listening to any mainstream media and find other sources.
Ask yourself why no investigation into any of these peoples sons?but instead on a man who they claim said to investigate them. Thats like instead of investigating the Lucky Strike shooter, hpd investigates the person who took the video of the shooting.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
What makes Trump diff for calling out the wb is he has recorded call of the so called incident. So he and anyone listening knows the wb is full of it.
Not sure which call you’re referring to, but Head of State level calls haven’t been recorded since the 70s and Nixon shenanigans. Or so it’s been reported as such. So interesting when media or others refer to “official transcripts” as opposed to “meeting notes”.
At least to me, the term “official transcripts” might as well be a recording. The transcripts of meetings, depositions, etc that I’ve had to review we’re generated from both video and audio recordings. So if there is no recoding, at least official one... oh wait... unofficial recording of the conversations. Who would do that? Now that is some mild tinfoil level there. 🤔
-
Not sure which call you’re referring to, but Head of State level calls haven’t been recorded since the 70s and Nixon shenanigans. Or so it’s been reported as such. So interesting when media or others refer to “official transcripts” as opposed to “meeting notes”.
At least to me, the term “official transcripts” might as well be a recording. The transcripts of meetings, depositions, etc that I’ve had to review we’re generated from both video and audio recordings. So if there is no recoding, at least official one... oh wait... unofficial recording of the conversations. Who would do that? Now that is some mild tinfoil level there. 🤔
From my discussions and readings, it's a multi-step process.
Voice recognition software actually creates the transcript. But, interestingly enough, the voice is not that of the President or other parties involved in the call. Instead, a staffer listens to the call and repeats what's being said, much like a court reporter "records" the dialogue during court hearings.
There may also be others listening to the call in other locations who take notes. Their notes are used to create official memos of the content of the call (not necessarily the exact conversation), and the memos are filed with the transcript.
Together, the memos and software-generated record become the "official transcript" of the call.
Given the process as I stated, the press trying to read any meaning into Trump's words on a call is an exercise in not just futility, but dishonesty. If the transcript is a collection of people's understandings of what was said, then there is no "mob boss" covert language to glean from the record. Only those actually on the call can interpret what was said, as well as the way it was said.
"Ol' Bag full of Schiff" and Pelosi are using the words of an anti-Trumper as Gospel, while the official transcript demonstrates none of the accusations are true.
They can try to deduce Trump's motivations for asking to look into the Bidens, but that's not evidence. Perception varies by individual.
-
Not sure which call you’re referring to, but Head of State level calls haven’t been recorded since the 70s and Nixon shenanigans. Or so it’s been reported as such. So interesting when media or others refer to “official transcripts” as opposed to “meeting notes”.
At least to me, the term “official transcripts” might as well be a recording. The transcripts of meetings, depositions, etc that I’ve had to review we’re generated from both video and audio recordings. So if there is no recoding, at least official one... oh wait... unofficial recording of the conversations. Who would do that? Now that is some mild tinfoil level there. 🤔
Unless he got recordings stored on a private e mail server. :o
It's sounding like a repeat of the Kav appointment to the supreme court.
"They must be believed" "Me too" movement
-
SNIP
"Ol' Bag full of Schiff" and Pelosi are using the words of an anti-Trumper as Gospel, while the official transcript demonstrates none of the accusations are true.
They can try to deduce Trump's motivations for asking to look into the Bidens, but that's not evidence. Perception varies by individual.
Thanks. My response was mostly in jest, but my point was the misinformation the media and those speculating (and that includes me) being thrown around.
I do agree they need to look into credibility and Schiff’s is lacking, and not only from this incident.
Unless he got recordings stored on a private e mail server. :o
It's sounding like a repeat of the Kav appointment to the supreme court.
"They must be believed" "Me too" movement
Not exactly the angle I was getting at, but close.
-
WB supposed to be anonymous, but Ukraine knows who it is. At least the WB doesn't have to worry about a Clinton being pulled. None of Trumps witnesses or accusers have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head.
-
The only actual whistleblower is named President Donald J. Trump. He released the official transcript of the call, and was actually a party to the call.
The first so-called whistleblower was not a party to the call -- no firsthand knowledge. Yes, anyone can make a complaint to the IG, but in cases of hearsay reports, the IG must investigate to find a person with firsthand knowledge of the details contained in the complaint to provide corroboration. That wasn't done, because nobody was willing to lie about the contents of the call -- i.e. quid-pro-quo and demanding dirt on Biden for political reasons.
No other person has come forward with any firsthand knowledge that contradicts or extends the information made public by President Trump.
Parts of the whistleblower complaint were based on secondhand knowledge however parts of the complaint were also firsthand knowledge. There is more to the whistleblower complaint than just the phone call.
Also, the law governing soliciting campaign contributions from foreign agents does not contain any element of quid-pro-quo so an absence of quid pro quo doesn't prove no offense occurred.
On a side note, Trump released the transcript of the call but does that mean we should assume it is completely accurate? It might certainly be an accurate transcript but how do we know it is accurate?
-
Same story, the 2nd wb was the source for the 1st wb and still no 1st hand knowledge. Kind of like how the fbi justfied FISA.
What makes Trump diff for calling out the wb is he has recorded call of the so called incident. So he and anyone listening knows the wb is full of it. Another Russia type story that only fools believe. Stop watching and listening to any mainstream media and find other sources.
Ask yourself why no investigation into any of these peoples sons?but instead on a man who they claim said to investigate them. Thats like instead of investigating the Lucky Strike shooter, hpd investigates the person who took the video of the shooting.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Why would any of that justify Trump threatening a witness? Threatening or intimidating a witness can be a felony by the way.
Some of your other questions/issues have answers but I am going to forgo addressing those since they are not relevant to the point of this thread.
By the way, the threat was caught on video so it didn't matter what news media presented it, we can all see the words come straight from his mouth. But I do trying to find a variety of news sources to get a more well rounded understanding. I don't narrow my exposure to just sources that love the president.
-
Parts of the whistleblower complaint were based on secondhand knowledge however parts of the complaint were also firsthand knowledge. There is more to the whistleblower complaint than just the phone call.
Also, the law governing soliciting campaign contributions from foreign agents does not contain any element of quid-pro-quo so an absence of quid pro quo doesn't prove no offense occurred.
On a side note, Trump released the transcript of the call but does that mean we should assume it is completely accurate? It might certainly be an accurate transcript but how do we know it is accurate?
You need to do more research.
The courts have not included INFORMATION as a "thing of value." The statutes are clear. Campaign contributions must involve a thing of value, such as cash, property, etc. Opposition research (aka "dirt") on one's opponent is INFORMATION.
On page 187, the Mueller report noted that no court case has yet applied the foreign-donor ban to
opposition research, and that being the first to apply the law this way may raise First Amendment
questions.
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)
-
I'm amazed at how many people are being fooled once again by the fake news. And Trump is playing it perfect, not giving an inch unless he has to. He's not afraid to call out bullshit when he sees it. Watch the fake news spin this single story for a while, then like Russia and many other fake news stories, it will be a nothing burger and they will find another topic to fool the people.
What ever happened to Epstein?
-
I'm amazed at how many people are being fooled once again by the fake news. And Trump is playing it perfect, not giving an inch unless he has to. He's not afraid to call out bullshit when he sees it. Watch the fake news spin this single story for a while, then like Russia and many other fake news stories, it will be a nothing burger and they will find another topic to fool the people.
What ever happened to Epstein?
The people at the prison who made Jeffrey disappear are enjoying their off-shore retirement accounts. That's about all.
-
The people at the prison who made Jeffrey disappear are enjoying their off-shore retirement accounts. That's about all.
"suicide"
-
The people at the prison who made Jeffrey disappear are enjoying their off-shore retirement accounts. That's about all.
They got robbed but were lucky enough that the robber forgot to take their wallet and valuables. And just as they were going to call 911, they decided to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of their head. So the robber lucked out.
-
Who is schieffs sister married to?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXfpRLeLH70
-
You need to do more research.
The courts have not included INFORMATION as a "thing of value." The statutes are clear. Campaign contributions must involve a thing of value, such as cash, property, etc. Opposition research (aka "dirt") on one's opponent is INFORMATION.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)
That is a decent argument for Trump to make in his defense however the main point I was making was about the focus on quid-pro-quo and how it is irrelevant if quid-pro-quo could not be determined. Not to say that quid-pro-quo doesn't matter at all, just that it doesn't matter in terms of whether he violated the criminal statute.
-
nothing to see here...
move along...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal
-
That is a decent argument for Trump to make in his defense however the main point I was making was about the focus on quid-pro-quo and how it is irrelevant if quid-pro-quo could not be determined. Not to say that quid-pro-quo doesn't matter at all, just that it doesn't matter in terms of whether he violated the criminal statute.
The guy who was actually on the other line (Ukraine pres) said there was no QPQ. Right from the horses mouth. But then again I guess a friend of a friend heard differently, so let's spend more time and resources investigating that.
Now they're bringing in some gal who stopped working for Ukraine in May 2019 and saying she has info on the call. So many stupid people out there believing what the fake news tells them. Let's not forget the guidelines for WB's were changed in August to be more like a rubber stamp like how FISA warrants are approved. #nuthintoseehere.
-
Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president
No credibility issues with this accuser, huh?
The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a "professional" tie is Joe Biden,
according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.
Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only "in the executive branch." The Washington Examiner
has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White
House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the
newspaper added that he "was detailed to the National Security Council at one point."
Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community's inspector general, told members of Congress that the
whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate. He had written earlier that while the
whistleblower's complaint was credible, he had shown "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor
of a rival political candidate."
A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner, “From everything we know about the whistleblower
and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with
Biden when he was vice president."
As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his
complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force
Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal
-
Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president
No credibility issues with this accuser, huh?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=34986.msg310188#msg310188
focus
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=34986.msg310188#msg310188
focus
Nothing informative to add?
#focu
-
Nothing informative to add?
#focu
me? add?
my post was over 36 hours before yours
obviously, you have nothing to add...
-
The guy who was actually on the other line (Ukraine pres) said there was no QPQ. Right from the horses mouth. But then again I guess a friend of a friend heard differently, so let's spend more time and resources investigating that.
Now they're bringing in some gal who stopped working for Ukraine in May 2019 and saying she has info on the call. So many stupid people out there believing what the fake news tells them. Let's not forget the guidelines for WB's were changed in August to be more like a rubber stamp like how FISA warrants are approved. #nuthintoseehere.
So we should take the Ukranian president's word for it?
Lets try to apply the same level of skepticism to a claim in support of Trump as we do in a claim against Trump. Otherwise we aren't looking for the truth, we are just looking for what supports what we want to believe.
Again, the whistleblower's complaint had both primary and secondary information yet people who don't want to believe the whistleblower keep talking as if it is only secondhand.
-
me? add?
my post was over 36 hours before yours
obviously, you have nothing to add...
You ... being a dick.....
As a Mod, you should refrain from being a dick.
If repeat links to sources are a problem for you, you have the means to delete, Instead, you have to troll me.
Sad. Nothing more to say.
:stopjack:
-
You ... being a dick.....
As a Mod, you should refrain from being a dick.
If repeat links to sources are a problem for you, you have the means to delete, Instead, you have to troll me.
Sad. Nothing more to say.
:stopjack:
you can be a mod on your own forum...
-
You ... being a dick.....
As a Mod, you should refrain from being a dick.
If repeat links to sources are a problem for you, you have the means to delete, Instead, you have to troll me.
Sad. Nothing more to say.
:stopjack:
you can be a mod on your own forum...
I smell a battle...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_ShwO10d6g
-
you can be a mod on your own forum...
Is there a point to your off-topic, bickering, immature posts?
-
Is there a point to your off-topic, bickering, immature posts?
yes
-
So we should take the Ukranian president's word for it?
Lets try to apply the same level of skepticism to a claim in support of Trump as we do in a claim against Trump. Otherwise we aren't looking for the truth, we are just looking for what supports what we want to believe.
Again, the whistleblower's complaint had both primary and secondary information yet people who don't want to believe the whistleblower keep talking as if it is only secondhand.
I use multiple sources to make my own conclusion. Same sources that conuded russia was a waste of time from the start. Same sources that said a porn star is not going to impeach anyone. Same intel about the Bidens from years ago. Even this is old news to those awoke.
On the opposite spectrum, your sources stated differently. Same guys who said WMDs exist and an entire war was based on it. Same sources that found 2 passports and none other. Same sources that dont mention how ISIS was created in Syria. The list goes on.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I use multiple sources to make my own conclusion. Same sources that conuded russia was a waste of time from the start. Same sources that said a porn star is not going to impeach anyone. Same intel about the Bidens from years ago. Even this is old news to those awoke.
On the opposite spectrum, your sources stated differently. Same guys who said WMDs exist and an entire war was based on it. Same sources that found 2 passports and none other. Same sources that dont mention how ISIS was created in Syria. The list goes on.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
My sources stated differently? Not sure what you are saying my sources are.
My point is that we shouldn't just be looking for things that exonerate Trump the same way people on the left shouldn't just be looking for something that looks bad for Trump. There is no fact finding and no justice when people are only looking for things to support what they want to believe.
So when we have a statement like that from the Ukranian president, look at it from both sides. What he said could be an important bit of evidence to exonerate Trump but also consider that if Trump really was making some back door deal that the Ukranian president might have many reasons to lie about it. How about that thought process instead of saying "oh look, the guy said Trump is innocent, that's proof enough, case closed, all else is fake news. "
-
My sources stated differently? Not sure what you are saying my sources are.
My point is that we shouldn't just be looking for things that exonerate Trump the same way people on the left shouldn't just be looking for something that looks bad for Trump. There is no fact finding and no justice when people are only looking for things to support what they want to believe.
So when we have a statement like that from the Ukranian president, look at it from both sides. What he said could be an important bit of evidence to exonerate Trump but also consider that if Trump really was making some back door deal that the Ukranian president might have many reasons to lie about it. How about that thought process instead of saying "oh look, the guy said Trump is innocent, that's proof enough, case closed, all else is fake news. "
Yes your "sources" state that Trump is using a QPQ and guilty of lots of stuff even though via deductive reasoning does prove otherwise. Not only for Ukraine, but Russia as well. I don't just believe what any new source tells me (even my trusted ones). I use them as a starting point and then dig deeper and then come to my own conclusions. This is how I knew from about 1 month into the Russia story, that it held no merit. And same goes with Ukraine. I knew right off the bat that it's another nothing burger. Does it make sense that instead of looking into the ones who took the money, the DNC is looking into the guy who's saying people should look into them? And again, thru my sources, I knew about Ukraine in 2016.
Ask yourself this. Trump has been investigated for years and everything came out to be a nothing burger. So by theory, he is the most vetted politician in US history. And none of his "witnesses" ever committed suicide or died from unusual circumstances.
Ukraine is another fabricated story because they want to swing the election to the DNC side and make people forget about Epstein.
-
Yes your "sources" state that Trump is using a QPQ and guilty of lots of stuff even though via deductive reasoning does prove otherwise. Not only for Ukraine, but Russia as well. I don't just believe what any new source tells me (even my trusted ones). I use them as a starting point and then dig deeper and then come to my own conclusions. This is how I knew from about 1 month into the Russia story, that it held no merit. And same goes with Ukraine. I knew right off the bat that it's another nothing burger. Does it make sense that instead of looking into the ones who took the money, the DNC is looking into the guy who's saying people should look into them? And again, thru my sources, I knew about Ukraine in 2016.
Ask yourself this. Trump has been investigated for years and everything came out to be a nothing burger. So by theory, he is the most vetted politician in US history. And none of his "witnesses" ever committed suicide or died from unusual circumstances.
Ukraine is another fabricated story because they want to swing the election to the DNC side and make people forget about Epstein.
I am looking back at my post history and I don't see where I posted the sources. As is my current understanding of the known evidence there is no proof of quid-pro-quo however the timing and nature of the request looks awfully suspicious. The QPQ was not explicitly stated however I think anyone involved would believe that Trump's request could be related to the financial dealings. So it could be nothing but it sure looks bad. It gives the appearance of impropriety which isn't good and the leader of the free world should know better. However though I think it clearly was a bad choice on his part but I did not believe he should be impeached over that.
Investigations haven't shown that it was a nothing burger, I don't think that is accurate. The investigation didn't find enough evidence to prove a criminal act on Trump's part however insufficient evidence doesn't prove he was innocent either.
However, I think that I pointed this out but just in case I didn't, the law in question does not mention QPQ as an aspect of the crime, so even if there wasn't QPQ does not prove no crime occurred.
What I am trying to digest now is Rudy Guliani's two associates who were arrested when they were trying to leave the country. The two of them had met Trump on multiple occasions as well. Did Trump have any dealings with these two? No idea yet but it doesn't look great for Giuliani.
-
Look to SDNY.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/ukrainian-oligarch-connected-to-burisma-the-bidens-and-billions-in-missing-us-and-imf-funds-reportedly-has-suspicious-connections-to-arrest-of-giulianis-associates/
-
I am looking back at my post history and I don't see where I posted the sources. As is my current understanding of the known evidence there is no proof of quid-pro-quo however the timing and nature of the request looks awfully suspicious. The QPQ was not explicitly stated however I think anyone involved would believe that Trump's request could be related to the financial dealings. So it could be nothing but it sure looks bad. It gives the appearance of impropriety which isn't good and the leader of the free world should know better. However though I think it clearly was a bad choice on his part but I did not believe he should be impeached over that.
Investigations haven't shown that it was a nothing burger, I don't think that is accurate. The investigation didn't find enough evidence to prove a criminal act on Trump's part however insufficient evidence doesn't prove he was innocent either.
However, I think that I pointed this out but just in case I didn't, the law in question does not mention QPQ as an aspect of the crime, so even if there wasn't QPQ does not prove no crime occurred.
What I am trying to digest now is Rudy Guliani's two associates who were arrested when they were trying to leave the country. The two of them had met Trump on multiple occasions as well. Did Trump have any dealings with these two? No idea yet but it doesn't look great for Giuliani.
Try looking into the timeline of how this all began for this year. I'll give you a starting point, Feb 2019 Ukraine reopens investigation into Biden's. Here's another huge clue, WB guidelines changed all of a sudden in Aug 2019. nuthin to see here.
Interesting how Guliani's associates were arrested so quickly. I guess because they don't play on the correct team (DNC). Still looking into real reason why.
-
I should know better. I’ve had many convos with folks like Inspector about this. I should learn more from him. Shoot more and post less. Which reminds me, I should make time to shoot with those guys again. Lots of wisdom to be shared and not BS.
It’s a lot harder being real. It takes intelligence and integrity. But then you know who your true friends are. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
It’s easy to be a hypocrite. It takes very little thought and low morals. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
With all this impeachment talks and investigations, the democrats have been on the run and on the defense.
Coincidently, no mass shootings or false flags been happening lately.
I take that back, there was 3 in 2 day's that one month.
However During the last presidency it seemed to happen quarterly. As soon as everyone forgot another would happen.
Interesting thought
-
With all this impeachment talks and investigations, the democrats have been on the run and on the defense.
Coincidently, no mass shootings or false flags been happening lately.
I take that back, there was 3 in 2 day's that one month.
However During the last presidency it seemed to happen quarterly. As soon as everyone forgot another would happen.
Interesting thought
#noteverythingisafalseflag
-
Now word on the block is Sheiff pressured Ukraine officials to report that they felt pressured by Trump. So much pressure going on. For every phone call, Trump needs a trace busta busta busta.
-
Now word on the block is Sheiff pressured Ukraine officials to report that they felt pressured by Trump. So much pressure going on. For every phone call, Trump needs a trace busta busta busta.
THE SHERIFF IS ..near..
-
Try looking into the timeline of how this all began for this year. I'll give you a starting point, Feb 2019 Ukraine reopens investigation into Biden's. Here's another huge clue, WB guidelines changed all of a sudden in Aug 2019. nuthin to see here.
Three things:
1. Does any of that justify Trump threatening the whistleblower?
2. The WB guidelines that were changed just prior to the complaint only affect one part of the whistleblower's complaint. Other aspects of the complaint were not affected by the guideline change.
3. While the guideline change looks mighty suspicious it doesn't prove that the claim is not true.
Interesting how Guliani's associates were arrested so quickly. I guess because they don't play on the correct team (DNC). Still looking into real reason why.
Or maybe they committed a crime and were leaving the country... From what is coming out about Guliani he is starting to look pretty corrupt. (Still digesting that story though)
-
This whistleblower(s) is all a nothing burger. There is nothing anyone can say that can possibly change the wording and meaning of the actual transcript. Since the president surprised the hell out Schiff and Pelosi by releasing the transcript, it certainly makes them look bad for accusing the president of something he didn’t do and something he didn’t say.
The impeachment is retaliation for the investigation that is exposing all the corruption from those on the left. Especially those with the names Hilary and Barrack. The real constitutional crisis is being created by the democrats in order to cover up for those two.
-
This whistleblower(s) is all a nothing burger.
How can you say that when you don't know all the details of what was reported? There is more to the complaint than just what was in the phone transcript.
There is nothing anyone can say that can possibly change the wording and meaning of the actual transcript. Since the president surprised the hell out Schiff and Pelosi by releasing the transcript, it certainly makes them look bad for accusing the president of something he didn’t do and something he didn’t say.
If you trust the transcript.
-
How can you say that when you don't know all the details of what was reported? There is more to the complaint than just what was in the phone transcript.
If you trust the transcript.
Please enlighten us all as to what, exactly, was in the complaint that was not in the transcript.
You obviously have inside sources to know that, since you also stated Inspector doesn't "know all the details of what was reported". I assume you said that because the news has not had the actual contents of the complaint leaked yet. Strange, since everything else Shifty-Schiff touches that's bad for Trump has been leaked to the press at the speed of light.
How can the details be unknown, but you somehow know there is more in the report than what was in the transcript?
-
Please enlighten us all as to what, exactly, was in the complaint that was not in the transcript.
You obviously have inside sources to know that, since you also stated Inspector doesn't "know all the details of what was reported". I assume you said that because the news has not had the actual contents of the complaint leaked yet. Strange, since everything else Shifty-Schiff touches that's bad for Trump has been leaked to the press at the speed of light.
How can the details be unknown, but you somehow know there is more in the report than what was in the transcript?
Just ignore him, Flapp. He’s just looking for attention. :wacko:
-
I did informal research this morning. When a story as big as the “Whistleblower” breaks, I search all of the MSM outlets that I can remember (getting old) for all the aspects of the story so I know what is being said on both sides.
This morning I searched the first page of each of these websites for the word “Whistleblower” from: NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, New York Times, Daily Wire, Wall Street Journal, Daily Caller, The Hill, Fox Financial News and Fox News. These are the outlets I turn to try and understand what is being said on both sides of issues that interest me.
I found every page talking about Impeachment due to Mulvaney’s testimony. I found impeachment talk due to the announcement that the G7 summit will be held at a Trump property. Thereby enriching him. BTW, the conservative outlets are already reporting this has changed due to backlash. The Liberal outlets are not reporting this, yet.
What did I find even remotely related to the “Whistleblower”? Nothing. Nada, Zilch. This story is now officially dead. It was a nothing burger when it broke. Though without the transcript it was a big deal. Once the transcript broke, once it came out that the “Whistleblower” lied on the application, once it was revealed that Adam Schiff lied about never talking to the “Whistleblower”, once it was discovered that the “Whistleblower” had only second hand information, once the bias of the “Whistleblower” was revealed, once the lie that the “Whistleblower” was going to testify, then testify in writing, then not at all, the left tried to do damage control. Once the left and their MSM outlet supporters realized it was a nothing burger, they dropped the story. If there was any meat to this story that could be used to impeach Trump it would continue to be front page news. At least at this time this morning, it is dead. There is nothing to add to this story that isn’t already out there. It doesn’t matter how many so called “Whistleblowers” come forward with first hand knowledge. Nothing can change what was discussed between the 2 presidents. Once you read the transcript for yourself (I did), you realize the left has been lying about this from the beginning. Including even before the transcript was released. The left never dreamed that Trump would release it and expose their lies.
While I feel that Trump did the right thing and release the transcript, I don’t like the fact that it was released because it sets a dangerous precedence for future political shenanigans by either party.
-
WMDs. Fake news
Russia. Fake news
Ukraine. Fake news
What what sheep will be fooled by next...
Theyre trying with Syria...oh wait peace talks after a few days? Oh no.
No coverage on
Project Veritas
Lead detective for epstein invesigation dies at age 50
9th NYPD cop commits suicide
Bidens son
Bidens brother in Iraq
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
WMDs. Fake news
Russia. Fake news
Ukraine. Fake news
What what sheep will be fooled by next...
Theyre trying with Syria...oh wait peace talks after a few days? Oh no.
No coverage on
Project Veritas
Lead detective for epstein invesigation dies at age 50
9th NYPD cop commits suicide
Bidens son
Bidens brother in Iraq
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Since Trump’s election I have completely given up on any of the MSM news agencies even thinking about telling the WHOLE truth. However, the NYT occasionally actually puts out truthful reporting. But usually only after they cannot deny or lie about it further. For example, they only recently reported that the Steele Dossier was likely Russian misinformation. Which, if true, proves the Russians were not only trying to interfere in our election, but Hilary, the DNC (lead by Hilary), other assorted Democrats were trying to change the results against Trump. Which obviously goes against the narrative from the left and MSM that Trump was conspiring with the Russians.
BTW, my conspiracy theory is that the Democrats are trying to hurry the impeachment hearings along in order to get the impeachment vote against Trump done BEFORE the IG report comes out. Because once the IG report comes out and charges are brought, it is going to blow up any and all so called “evidence” that they have to impeach Trump. :tinfoil:
-
Just ignore him, Flapp. He’s just looking for attention. :wacko:
Just pointing out the obvious inconsistency in his statements, that YOU don't know what's in the complaint that wasn't released, but somehow HE does! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Well, obvious to anyone but him.
-
Inspector - There you go and taking a rational and logical approach, as opposed to emotional and “must do something” or “bad man meen” approach. Seems like political shenanigans all around, but more with one side. I’ll leave it to logical and sane folks to decide for themselves. That said, one side has an obvious pattern of throwing crap up on the board and trying to see what sticks. If it doesn’t, move onto the next. Sad that many eat it all up and take it as fact while anything to the contrary is written off as “well, my sources didn’t say”.
-
BTW, my conspiracy theory is that the Democrats are trying to hurry the impeachment hearings along in order to get the impeachment vote against Trump done BEFORE the IG report comes out. Because once the IG report comes out and charges are brought, it is going to blow up any and all so called “evidence” that they have to impeach Trump. :tinfoil:
My theory is similar. if the Dems are on the attack (impeachment, campaign smears, whatever), then anything -- legitimate or not, criminal or not -- that Trump accuses the Dems of doing will be quashed in the media as retaliation or distraction tactics not worthy of serious consideration.
-
Inspector - There you go and taking a rational and logical approach, as opposed to emotional and “must do something” or “bad man meen” approach. Seems like political shenanigans all around, but more with one side. I’ll leave it to logical and sane folks to decide for themselves. That said, one side has an obvious pattern of throwing crap up on the board and trying to see what sticks. If it doesn’t, move onto the next. Sad that many eat it all up and take it as fact while anything to the contrary is written off as “well, my sources didn’t say”.
Sorry DRCK. Didn’t mean to offend you by being rational and logical. I’ll be a lot more emotional and push to have everyone else do something while I kick back and laugh. All from my parents’ basement. Orange man baaaaad. He’s Hitler and a Nazi. :rofl:
Even though both sides like to play the political shenanigans game, you are right, one side, with the help of our MSM flings much more shit than the other.
The left makes claims of being woke and elitist intellectually superior while they look at us as a bunch of backwards hillbilly redneck smelly Walmart shoppers with an IQ of 60. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones without the intellect to see reality and the truth of what is going on. It kills them inside because they realize that us smelly Walmart shoppers DO realize the truth and they refuse to accept it by continuing to try and engage us in conversation when we obviously don’t want to converse with them due to their narcissistic, moronic behaviors and ideals. And yes, they are the ones that attempt to belittle your thoughts by making statements like “well, my sources didn’t say”. It is a form of trying to win debates by not giving any credence to your words even if it is the truth. Sound familiar? :rofl:
-
Please enlighten us all as to what, exactly, was in the complaint that was not in the transcript.
You obviously have inside sources to know that, since you also stated Inspector doesn't "know all the details of what was reported". I assume you said that because the news has not had the actual contents of the complaint leaked yet. Strange, since everything else Shifty-Schiff touches that's bad for Trump has been leaked to the press at the speed of light.
How can the details be unknown, but you somehow know there is more in the report than what was in the transcript?
As far as I know the specific details of what was in the whistleblower were not made public though I may just not be up to date on how much was made public. However, from what I have read, the whistleblower's complaint contained items that were secondhand knowledge as well as items that were firsthand knowledge to the whistleblower. The IG's office stated that the complaint did contain some firsthand information.
But I find it rather telling at how objective someone is when they focus so strongly on whether the complaint was based firsthand or secondhand knowledge. For someone trying to find the truth the first reaction isn't to look for a reason to disbelieve something but to acknowledge limitations and look for more information. Sadly too many people only see "secondhand" and try to disregard what is in the complaint. They are not looking for the truth.
Interestingly enough, as I was digging into this story more I found out that Trump's (and others) claims that the policy was changed right before the complaint was filed is false. There was never a law that said the whistleblower had to hand firsthand knowledge and the law was never changed. I guess we were fed fake news about the law being changed. Too bad so many were eager to believe it instead of questioning it.
https://www.apnews.com/2305510b6e23498c9298ed597ddccbac
There are also stories now of a second whistleblower complaint that allegedly has firsthand knowledge.
-
Just ignore him, Flapp. He’s just looking for attention. :wacko:
It's sad you confuse the search for the truth with looking for attention.
-
As far as I know the specific details of what was in the whistleblower were not made public though I may just not be up to date on how much was made public. However, from what I have read, the whistleblower's complaint contained items that were secondhand knowledge as well as items that were firsthand knowledge to the whistleblower. The IG's office stated that the complaint did contain some firsthand information.
But I find it rather telling at how objective someone is when they focus so strongly on whether the complaint was based firsthand or secondhand knowledge. For someone trying to find the truth the first reaction isn't to look for a reason to disbelieve something but to acknowledge limitations and look for more information. Sadly too many people only see "secondhand" and try to disregard what is in the complaint. They are not looking for the truth.
Interestingly enough, as I was digging into this story more I found out that Trump's (and others) claims that the policy was changed right before the complaint was filed is false. There was never a law that said the whistleblower had to hand firsthand knowledge and the law was never changed. I guess we were fed fake news about the law being changed. Too bad so many were eager to believe it instead of questioning it.
https://www.apnews.com/2305510b6e23498c9298ed597ddccbac
There are also stories now of a second whistleblower complaint that allegedly has firsthand knowledge.
Nothing you posted here even remotely addresses my comments.
As usual. You're not objective. You made a statement of "fact", and I asked where you got your facts. You go off in left field about "objectivity" and "first vs second hand accounts."
:sleeping:
You told Inspector he can't know what was in the complaint, but you also say you know there was more in it than what was in the official released transcript.
So far, you haven't come close to addressing how you know something nobody else outside of the actual players know.
-
Nothing you posted here even remotely addresses my comments.
As usual. You're not objective. You made a statement of "fact", and I asked where you got your facts. You go off in left field about "objectivity" and "first vs second hand accounts."
:sleeping:
You told Inspector he can't know what was in the complaint, but you also say you know there was more in it than what was in the official released transcript.
So far, you haven't come close to addressing how you know something nobody else outside of the actuals players knows.
Flapp,
It is obvious to me that he doesn’t mind embarrassing himself in order to get the attention he craves. Just ignore him. Don’t feed his need for atttention.
-
Flapp,
It is obvious to me that he doesn’t mind embarrassing himself in order to get the attention he craves. Just ignore him. Don’t feed his need for atttention.
Sometimes I like to pick the low-hanging fruit.
The point I made is obvious logic. He has made comments in the past about logic and related issues as if that's the only way he operates.
Calling him out on it factors in a multitude of attack points, from objectivity to logic and rational thinking to assuming things not reported or believing fake news when it is reported.
I just want him to try and dig his way out of it. So far, all I see is deflection, distraction, tangential nonsense and lectures on finding the truth.
It's like watching a one-armed, blind knife juggler. :rofl:
-
Nothing you posted here even remotely addresses my comments.
As usual. You're not objective. You made a statement of "fact", and I asked where you got your facts. You go off in left field about "objectivity" and "first vs second hand accounts."
:sleeping:
You told Inspector he can't know what was in the complaint, but you also say you know there was more in it than what was in the official released transcript.
So far, you haven't come close to addressing how you know something nobody else outside of the actual players know.
I stated parts of the whistleblower complaint contained firsthand information and I provided a link as proof.
It looks like you don't want to admit you were wrong so you are presenting a straw man. I never claimed I knew what the information in the complaint to be, I only stated that some of it is firsthand. And I provided a source to support what I said but you just try to ignore it.
Plus your own argument defeats you. If I can't know that there was firsthand knowledge then you can't know there wasn't.
Not to mention you avoided addressing the fact that being secondhand knowledge is no justification to discount the complaint so even if you were right about it being secondhand your argument still falls flat.
-
Flapp,
It is obvious to me that he doesn’t mind embarrassing himself in order to get the attention he craves. Just ignore him. Don’t feed his need for atttention.
I don't care if I get attention, only that the truth is presented. I have provided proof of what I stated. If I am wrong then show it but don't resort to ad-hom attacks as if that disproves anything I have said.
-
I stated parts of the whistleblower complaint contained firsthand information and I provided a link as proof.
It looks like you don't want to admit you were wrong so you are presenting a straw man. I never claimed I knew what the information in the complaint to be, I only stated that some of it is firsthand. And I provided a source to support what I said but you just try to ignore it.
Plus your own argument defeats you. If I can't know that there was firsthand knowledge then you can't know there wasn't.
Not to mention you avoided addressing the fact that being secondhand knowledge is no justification to discount the complaint so even if you were right about it being secondhand your argument still falls flat.
Bullshit. Your words, not mine:
How can you say that when you don't know all the details of what was reported? There is more to the complaint than just what was in the phone transcript.
If you trust the transcript.
How can you make the statement there is more to the complaint while simultaneously denying you know what is in the complaint?
"He's saying more than what the White House made public."
"He is? What did he say that wasn't in the transcript?"
"I don't know, because they aren't releasing the complaint. But, I know there's more .... because Orange Man bad." :wacko:
I think you have Pelosi-itus, only in reverse. "We don't have to read the complaint before we know what is in it." :rofl:
-
Bullshit. Your words, not mine:
How can you make the statement there is more to the complaint while simultaneously denying you know what is in the complaint?
"He's saying more than what the White House made public."
"He is? What did he say that wasn't in the transcript?"
"I don't know, because they aren't releasing the complaint. But, I know there's more .... because Orange Man bad." :wacko:
I think you have Pelosi-itus, only in reverse. "We don't have to read the complaint before we know what is in it." :rofl:
Because the phone call was secondhand information to the whistleblower but the IG stated there is also firsthand information in the complaint. Logically then the first hand knowledge must be something additional to the phone call since the phone call was only secondhand.
But I also know it is about more than just what was said in the phone call because it is being reported what else is in the whistleblower complaint.
https://fortune.com/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-phone-call/
Plus the complaint was made public. Some redactions included.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
Why are you more interested in discrediting the claim than you are with finding out whether Trump did something wrong?
-
Because the phone call was secondhand information to the whistleblower but the IG stated there is also firsthand information in the complaint. Logically then the first hand knowledge must be something additional to the phone call since the phone call was only secondhand.
But I also know it is about more than just what was said in the phone call because it is being reported what else is in the whistleblower complaint.
https://fortune.com/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-phone-call/
Plus the complaint was made public. Some redactions included.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
Why are you more interested in discrediting the claim than you are with finding out whether Trump did something wrong?
That PDF was authored by Schiff. He's been lying about Trump since Trump won in 2016. Every time he was in front of a camera, he swore there was irrefutable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the Mueller report was released.
He also read a fake transcript of the US-Ukrainian phone call into the official record of the hearing. He deserves to be removed from his chairmanship on that committee for that alone.
You want to talk about facts and reliable sources, and you post a letter from Schiff? That's not the COMPLAINT. That's Schiff's synopsis of what he wants so badly to be true.
Apparently you think the complaint was altered with additional information by the firsthand "informant". That's not how a complaint works. So, your entire firsthand-secondhand explanation has no relevance to whether there was MORE IN THE COMPLAINT THAN THE TRANSCRIPT.
You really can't wrap your head around basic logic, nor answer a basic question, can you?
I'm more concerned with the leaders in Congress doing their jobs instead of running Soviet KGB-style closed door secret meetings. They should be having a public vote to start this Russia 2.0 witch hunt.
But you are more concerned with what Trump MIGHT have done than what the Trump-haters in Congress ARE doing.
-
That PDF was authored by Schiff. He's been lying about Trump since Trump won in 2016. Every time he was in front of a camera, he swore there was irrefutable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the Mueller report was released.
He also read a fake transcript of the US-Ukrainian phone call into the official record of the hearing. He deserves to be removed from his chairmanship on that committee for that alone.
You want to talk about facts and reliable sources, and you post a letter from Schiff? That's not the COMPLAINT. That's Schiff's synopsis of what he wants so badly to be true.
Apparently you think the complaint was altered with additional information by the firsthand "informant". That's not how a complaint works. So, your your entire firsthand-secondhand explanation has no relevance to whether there was MORE IN THE COMPLAINT THAN THE TRANSCRIPT.
You really can't wrap your head around basic logic, nor answer a basic question, can you?
I'm more concerned with the leaders in Congress doing their jobs instead of running Soviet KGB-style closed door secret meetings. They should be having a public vote to start this Russia 2.0 witch hunt.
But you are more concerned with what Trump MIGHT have done than what the Trump-haters in Congress ARE doing.
Flapp,
Just so you know, I am no longer following this guy. The only time I read what he says is when someone quotes him.
Is this guy for real? He believes the Schiff statement that he made up and the Republicans tried to get him censured for? Because Schiff lied in order to deceive The naive. It just goes to show that lies work on some people. I just thought this guy is as woke he claims to be. Apparently not. You do realize that everytime this guy uses Schiff’s lies as proof of something it means he is lying as well? Which means everytime you go back and forth with him he just keeps propagating his lies.
I know you enjoy giving this guy grief and making him look foolish and moronic. But this subject is a nothingburger. Everyone has moved on except you two. I suggest you quit wasting your time with this guy on this subject. I know for me this guy is not worth the effort. JMHO
-
Flapp,
Just so you know, I am no longer following this guy. The only time I read what he says is when someone quotes him.
Is this guy for real? He believes the Schiff statement that he made up and the Republicans tried to get him censured for? Because Schiff lied in order to deceive The naive. It just goes to show that lies work on some people. I just thought this guy is as woke he claims to be. Apparently not. You do realize that everytime this guy uses Schiff’s lies as proof of something it means he is lying as well? Which means everytime you go back and forth with him he just keeps propagating his lies.
I know you enjoy giving this guy grief and making him look foolish and moronic. But this subject is a nothingburger. Everyone has moved on except you two. I suggest you quit wasting your time with this guy on this subject. I know for me this guy is not worth the effort. JMHO
“The Naive”
Love it ;D
Sorry, moving on :kickcan:
:rofl:
-
“The Naive”
Love it ;D
Sorry, moving on :kickcan:
:rofl:
I actually have something new to add to this. There is a rumor running around that there never was a "Whistleblower". Plus never were additional ones either. That it was just another made up accusation/form from Schiff that was sent to the IG for confirmation. If this is true, then I am wrong this is a nothingburger. It is actually an illegal act by Adam Schiff who is probably the biggest liar in the House. So this could play out as something more than it originally appeared.
I have something else to add to this. Why was Jerry Nadler removed from running the impeachment hearings and replaced by Schiff? It has been written that Nadler was not willing to continue with an inquiry because the inquiry had already been voted on 3 times and the Democrats did not have enough votes to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And Adam Schiff was willing to pick up the lying ball and run with it in order to keep impeachment on the table since the Democrats do not have the votes to proceed with a lawful impeachment inquiry.
Time will tell...
-
I actually have something new to add to this. There is a rumor running around that there never was a "Whistleblower". Plus never were additional ones either. That it was just another made up accusation/form from Schiff that was sent to the IG for confirmation. If this is true, then I am wrong this is a nothingburger. It is actually an illegal act by Adam Schiff who is probably the biggest liar in the House. So this could play out as something more than it originally appeared.
I have something else to add to this. Why was Jerry Nadler removed from running the impeachment hearings and replaced by Schiff? It has been written that Nadler was not willing to continue with an inquiry because the inquiry had already been voted on 3 times and the Democrats did not have enough votes to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And Adam Schiff was willing to pick up the lying ball and run with it in order to keep impeachment on the table since the Democrats do not have the votes to proceed with a lawful impeachment inquiry.
Time will tell...
Only time for a quick response. I just hope there are lots of folks who enjoy eating their nothingburger. Is it better than crow? :-X
8)
:rofl:
-
Only time for a quick response. I just hope there are lots of folks who enjoy eating their nothingburger. Is it better than crow? :-X
8)
:rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Isn't a burger without meat a nothingburger, also? Just a thought since burger is short for hamburger which is the principal ingredient in a burger. Just like with having more than 2 sexes, the line is blurring. :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
I actually have something new to add to this. There is a rumor running around that there never was a "Whistleblower". Plus never were additional ones either. That it was just another made up accusation/form from Schiff that was sent to the IG for confirmation. If this is true, then I am wrong this is a nothingburger. It is actually an illegal act by Adam Schiff who is probably the biggest liar in the House. So this could play out as something more than it originally appeared.
I have something else to add to this. Why was Jerry Nadler removed from running the impeachment hearings and replaced by Schiff? It has been written that Nadler was not willing to continue with an inquiry because the inquiry had already been voted on 3 times and the Democrats did not have enough votes to approve of the impeachment inquiry. And Adam Schiff was willing to pick up the lying ball and run with it in order to keep impeachment on the table since the Democrats do not have the votes to proceed with a lawful impeachment inquiry.
Time will tell...
I have heard this. Which would make sense if you use deductive reasoning. 2nd party WB that hear something from someone. That way no one can contest the 2nd party info. Because the WB "wasn't there" and it's word of mouth. Schiff was making this plan even prior to anyone coming forward. Probably cooking up a story to sell to the sheep in America.
Remember how quickly Snowden's name was all over the place and Julian's. Because they had damaging intel on the DNC. The fake news made them out to be traitors and villains. But when any damaging intel on the GOP/Trump, ID is hidden or not known for a while.
-
I have heard this. Which would make sense if you use deductive reasoning. 2nd party WB that hear something from someone. That way no one can contest the 2nd party info. Because the WB "wasn't there" and it's word of mouth. Schiff was making this plan even prior to anyone coming forward. Probably cooking up a story to sell to the sheep in America.
Remember how quickly Snowden's name was all over the place and Julian's. Because they had damaging intel on the DNC. The fake news made them out to be traitors and villains. But when any damaging intel on the GOP/Trump, ID is hidden or not known for a while.
I think Trump knows something we don't. Which is why he keeps calling out for the WB to come forward. If there is no WB it would make sense for him to push this. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sometimes it is hard for me to understand Trump's means and methods but I figured this one out pretty quickly.
-
From another perspective, Pelosi is keeping the Inquiry from being openly voted on to protect her members that are up for reelection in 2020. She doesn't want those who barely beat their Republican opponents in red-leaning districts to be forced to vote for something their constituents mostly know is a lie. If those districts helped elect Trump, they can't rely on TDS to give them the win in 2020. Voting for a bogus inquiry based on bogus (not unlawful) scandals will backfire on them.
Also, once the inquiry is official, assuming the vote goes their way, the process becomes less one-sided. Republican members can then call their own witnesses, cross-examine the Dem's witnesses, and attend all the hearings. Without the vote, this is nothing more than another partisan, political witch hunt.
More voters will turn out in 2020 than they did in 2018, because it's a presidential election year. Midterms usually have a much lower turn out. That fact alone means the Dems are at great risk of losing the House majority again after just 2 years in the Speaker's seat. especially since the Dems haven't had anyone in the primary field that can excite their party voters and motivate them.
-
From another perspective, Pelosi is keeping the Inquiry from being openly voted on to protect her members that are up for reelection in 2020. She doesn't want those who barely beat their Republican opponents in red-leaning districts to be forced to vote for something their constituents mostly know is a lie. If those districts helped elect Trump, they can't rely on TDS to give them the win in 2020. Voting for a bogus inquiry based on bogus (not unlawful) scandals will backfire on them.
Also, once the inquiry is official, assuming the vote goes their way, the process becomes less one-sided. Republican members can then call their own witnesses, cross-examine the Dem's witnesses, and attend all the hearings. Without the vote, this is nothing more than another partisan, political witch hunt.
Yes, Pelosi is trying to protect those House members from going on record for impeachment. Which is why that up until now, they have not had the numbers to approve of and perform an official impeachment inquiry. Pelosi might be losing power as speaker but she isn't stupid. She is playing the naive into a tizzy over impeachment with out actually performing an official impeachment inquiry. It is sad that they have to play out this Kabuki Theater in order to try and win the next election on the merits of your policies. :o :o :o
-
From another perspective, Pelosi is keeping the Inquiry from being openly voted on to protect her members that are up for reelection in 2020. She doesn't want those who barely beat their Republican opponents in red-leaning districts to be forced to vote for something their constituents mostly know is a lie. If those districts helped elect Trump, they can't rely on TDS to give them the win in 2020. Voting for a bogus inquiry based on bogus (not unlawful) scandals will backfire on them.
You mean like how they delayed the Mueller report until the elections were done. He finished his report months before it was released. Same stuff, different day. Same people being fooled again and again because they don't want to see the truth.
-
Yes, Pelosi is trying to protect those House members from going on record for impeachment. Which is why that up until now, they have not had the numbers to approve of and perform an official impeachment inquiry. 1) Pelosi might be losing power as speaker but she isn't stupid. 2) She is playing the naive into a tizzy over impeachment with out actually performing an official impeachment inquiry. It is sad that they have to play out this Kabuki Theater in order to try and win the next election on the merits of your policies. :o :o :o
1) I think you just turned on rk with that statement. :o ;)
2) And we (no I) have seen that very effect. . .
-
After 8 years of Obama compared to only 2-3 years of Trump, and the House being in Dem hands for the past calendar year, the Democrats have demonstrated they can't do their jobs effectively with, or without, control of all 3 branches.
It's as if they all believe their job is to maintain power by getting themselves reelected, and everything else is just a campaign issue.
-
After 8 years of Obama compared to only 2-3 years of Trump, and the House being in Dem hands for the past calendar year, the Democrats have demonstrated they can't do their jobs effectively with, or without, control of all 3 branches.
It's as if they all believe their job is to maintain power by getting themselves reelected, and everything else is just a campaign issue.
More like 1.5 years.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Isn't a burger without meat a nothingburger, also? Just a thought since burger is short for hamburger which is the principal ingredient in a burger. Just like with having more than 2 sexes, the line is blurring. :shake: :shake: :shake:
Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What kinds of "wish sandwiches" are you used to? ???
;D
:rofl:
-
My friend asked if I wanted a jam sandwich.
He took 2 pieces of bread and jammed them together.
-
Romania scandal next. Which fish gonna get hooked.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Romania scandal next. Which fish gonna get hooked.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I agree about Romania. But who is next? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I actually have something new to add to this. There is a rumor running around that there never was a "Whistleblower". Plus never were additional ones either. That it was just another made up accusation/form from Schiff that was sent to the IG for confirmation. If this is true, then I am wrong this is a nothingburger. It is actually an illegal act by Adam Schiff who is probably the biggest liar in the House. So this could play out as something more than it originally appeared.
I don’t usually quote myself but I felt it applicable when I read this article from Ben Shapiro:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-request-adam-schiff-bring-whistleblower-forward-for-questioning?utm_campaign=ben_shapiro_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9b8WWzVED9_RA41iMGpSkiji5A2bBsPWDunKjo65TB5NWlEf9C8jwqhjLj40eCIbjSm-aJOoDx8ZxFiceJ-WET9_jKDA&_hsmi=78520739
“The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”
It’s obvious now that something is up and the actual existence of the WB is now in play.
-
I don’t usually quote myself but I felt it applicable when I read this article from Ben Shapiro:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-request-adam-schiff-bring-whistleblower-forward-for-questioning?utm_campaign=ben_shapiro_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9b8WWzVED9_RA41iMGpSkiji5A2bBsPWDunKjo65TB5NWlEf9C8jwqhjLj40eCIbjSm-aJOoDx8ZxFiceJ-WET9_jKDA&_hsmi=78520739
“The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”
It’s obvious now that something is up and the actual existence of the WB is now in play.
They are trying to "Kavenaugh" Trump -- accusations are enough to smear. No need to prove anything.
They hope to drag this out through the coming election. it plays to the voters who gave the Dems the House in 2018 on the promise that Trump would be impeached. If they waited for evidence of an actual crime, impeachment would never happen.
-
That PDF was authored by Schiff. He's been lying about Trump since Trump won in 2016. Every time he was in front of a camera, he swore there was irrefutable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the Mueller report was released. He also read a fake transcript of the US-Ukrainian phone call into the official record of the hearing. He deserves to be removed from his chairmanship on that committee for that alone.
Schiff's accountability has certainly been called into question and I would probably agree that his dishonesty should be grounds to remove him from his chairmanship.
You want to talk about facts and reliable sources, and you post a letter from Schiff? That's not the COMPLAINT. That's Schiff's synopsis of what he wants so badly to be true.
That's not the complaint? It sure looks like the complaint, it is written in the first person from the view of the whistleblower so I am not sure your exact objection. Schiff may have helped the whistleblower wright it but that does not mean its not the whistleblower's statement. I understand it is not the official complaint form that was used but it still appears to be from the whistleblower. So how do you support you suggestion that it is Schiff's statement and not the whistleblowers?
Apparently you think the complaint was altered with additional information by the firsthand "informant". That's not how a complaint works. So, your entire firsthand-secondhand explanation has no relevance to whether there was MORE IN THE COMPLAINT THAN THE TRANSCRIPT.
The complaint was altered? Not sure what you are referring to there. As I told you, and supported with a link, the IG stated that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge.
You really can't wrap your head around basic logic, nor answer a basic question, can you?
You are the one avoiding the tough points, not me. How about you address the ones I pointed out first, then we can talk. I won't hold my breath because you always avoid the ones that disprove your arguments. You avoided addressing the fact that the IG stated there was firsthand knowledge and you ignored where I showed that it was a false claim that regulations about secondhand information being changed just before the complaint. Those two facts disprove your complaints about the complaint being secondhand. I give you facts and you avoid them.
But you are more concerned with what Trump MIGHT have done than what the Trump-haters in Congress ARE doing.
Nope, justice is blind. You are the one jumping to Trump's defense while all I want to do is let the process play out and evaluate the whistleblower's complaint. How about some integrity for the truth.
-
Schiff's accountability has certainly been called into question and I would probably agree that his dishonesty should be grounds to remove him from his chairmanship.
That's not the complaint? It sure looks like the complaint, it is written in the first person from the view of the whistleblower so I am not sure your exact objection. Schiff may have helped the whistleblower wright it but that does not mean its not the whistleblower's statement. I understand it is not the official complaint form that was used but it still appears to be from the whistleblower. So how do you support you suggestion that it is Schiff's statement and not the whistleblowers?
The complaint was altered? Not sure what you are referring to there. As I told you, and supported with a link, the IG stated that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge.
You are the one avoiding the tough points, not me. How about you address the ones I pointed out first, then we can talk. I won't hold my breath because you always avoid the ones that disprove your arguments. You avoided addressing the fact that the IG stated there was firsthand knowledge and you ignored where I showed that it was a false claim that regulations about secondhand information being changed just before the complaint. Those two facts disprove your complaints about the complaint being secondhand. I give you facts and you avoid them.
Nope, justice is blind. You are the one jumping to Trump's defense while all I want to do is let the process play out and evaluate the whistleblower's complaint. How about some integrity for the truth.
What Process???
Secret meetings?
Excluding everyone in the other party from hearings, reading transcripts, knowing who the whistleblower is?
Refusing to hold a House vote to formally open the inquiry?
This is a "process" the way the Star Chamber was a process. If you don't understand the reference, it was a Michael Douglas movie. If you still don't understand the parallel, Google is your friend.
https://youtu.be/jT9fzDULOwU
-
Ukraine servers "crashed". Nuthin to see here...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Until there is a vote and the rules governing the inquiry agreed upon/ratified, there is NO PROCESS. It's a partisan witch hunt being conducted in the dark with only the opinions and select quotes taken out of context leaked to smear Trump.
But, Orange Man Bad. Dems in Congress have been screaming for impeachment before, during and now after the Mueller probe. Why does anyone think they are serious about following any rational or fair process?
-
Until there is a vote and the rules governing the inquiry agreed upon/ratified, there is NO PROCESS. It's a partisan witch hunt being conducted in the dark with only the opinions and select quotes taken out of context leaked to smear Trump.
But, Orange Man Bad. Dems in Congress have been screaming for impeachment before, during and now after the Mueller probe. Why does anyone think they are serious about following any rational or fair process?
This is why things are going to start happening. This is nothing more than an attempted coup. No real sources or intel. Just made up stories. Trump is the most vetted politician in history. Many investigations and nothing sticks.
-
Nothing burger, still. The Dems have moved on from this farce, the MSM has moved on. There is nothing here. And unless there is proof Schiff made up the WB, there is still nothing here. Trump releasing the transcript did two things. It proved that Schiff’s statement was all a lie for which the Repubs tried to have him censured. And it proved that nothing the WB could ever say would either be a lie or would corroborate the transcript. N O T H I N G B U R G E R :closed:
-
Sexual assault allegations next, watch.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Sexual assault allegations next, watch.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
As good a guess as any.
Dems aren't picky. They'll jump on any accusation that can push their agenda -- evidence not required.
The only agenda they have at the moment seems to be impeachment.
BTW, we are all paying them to do this, and paying them quite well I might add. :wtf:
-
What Process???
Secret meetings?
Excluding everyone in the other party from hearings, reading transcripts, knowing who the whistleblower is?
Refusing to hold a House vote to formally open the inquiry?
This is a "process" the way the Star Chamber was a process. If you don't understand the reference, it was a Michael Douglas movie. If you still don't understand the parallel, Google is your friend.
https://youtu.be/jT9fzDULOwU
The process of how a whistleblower complaint is handled.
Not sure which secret meeting you are talking about. The hearing that a handful of republican senators came in on? As I understand it there were republicans on that committee and at the meeting so it wasn't a democrat only secret meeting. Are you referent to a different meeting?
Lindsey Graham is wrong in the video, the vote to impeach does not have the same protections he references as does someone in a trial. The house votes to impeach and then a trial is held in the senate. An impeachment is like an indictment, the accused does not have all the rights mentioned before they can be indicted. So Trump does not get to confront witnesses before an impeachment can be voted upon. That suggestion is like saying an accused person gets to know everything about an investigation before the prosecutor's even file charges. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that states the president has any of those rights that Trump and his lawyers are claiming. The constitution specifies no such protections and since it isn't a criminal prosecution normal criminally accused protections don't apply.
I do think Trump should be allowed to call witnesses and question them as a matter of principle and because both Clinton and Nixon got to but it isn't a guaranteed right and he definitely doesn't get it at this point in the process.
-
The process of how a whistleblower complaint is handled.
Not sure which secret meeting you are talking about. The hearing that a handful of republican senators came in on? As I understand it there were republicans on that committee and at the meeting so it wasn't a democrat only secret meeting. Are you referent to a different meeting?
Lindsey Graham is wrong in the video, the vote to impeach does not have the same protections he references as does someone in a trial. The house votes to impeach and then a trial is held in the senate. An impeachment is like an indictment, the accused does not have all the rights mentioned before they can be indicted. So Trump does not get to confront witnesses before an impeachment can be voted upon. That suggestion is like saying an accused person gets to know everything about an investigation before the prosecutor's even file charges. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that states the president has any of those rights that Trump and his lawyers are claiming. The constitution specifies no such protections and since it isn't a criminal prosecution normal criminally accused protections don't apply.
I do think Trump should be allowed to call witnesses and question them as a matter of principle and because both Clinton and Nixon got to but it isn't a guaranteed right and he definitely doesn't get it at this point in the process.
I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.
You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The process can't be 100% one-sided. Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.
Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process. Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council. That's not his job. "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee. The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone. It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.
What is Schiff hiding? He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam. I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!
-
I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.
You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The process can't be 100% one-sided. Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.
Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process. Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council. That's not his job. "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee. The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone. It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.
What is Schiff hiding? He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam. I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!
Not sure why you still bother with this guy?
You are 100% correct with what you said here. The House of Representatives is also known as The Peoples House. Meaning this branch of government directly represents all of the citizens of this republic compared to the Senate and Executive Branch. And dare I say that if the whole House of Representatives is not included in Impeachment proceedings then the people are not being properly represented by the House. I totally resent these closed door hearings. I completely resent an attempt to run an impeachment inquiry without first voting on it by the ENTIRE House. I’m sure you know this but it bears repeating. The House has already voted 3 times to start an impeachment inquiry on Trump, and in all 3 cases there was not enough votes to start an official inquiry. I suspect that there still are not enough votes to start an official inquiry. Otherwise, there is no good reason not to vote for it and make it transparent. As long as the Democrats keep up with these closed door meetings where they purposely control and leak out only one side of the story, naive persons like the one you are wasting your time with are not going to go to news sources that tell the truth in order to know what is really happening here. This is a political stunt, kabuki theater. It is a shit show being put on by the democrats.
The thing that bothers me the most about this process, is not only not having transparency, but the lack of due process afforded by our constitution for the president to face his accusers and given the right to cross examine witnesses and present his own evidence. The few republicans that are allowed into these closed door meetings can only do so much because their hands are being tied in these meetings. This is being done purposely in order to control the narrative and what the MSM is reporting on. I’ll give you a great example of this. Schiff made a speech about the conversation with Ukraine and the WB complaint. Then Trump released the transcript of the phone call. I read the transcript. All 5 pages. It was quite boring as nothing was talked about that was really interesting except maybe a couple of sentences. The point of all of this is that Schiff lied about what was in the conversation that the WB complained about because he never suspected that the president would release the transcript. There was not one ounce of truth in what Schiff said about the conversation and lied about never speaking to the WB. If the republicans had the votes Schiff would have been censured. And this is the guy who the democrats are hanging their hat on to push for secret meeting impeachment? Ridiculous.
Personally, I want complete transparency. I want to know if the president did something worthy of impeachment. And I want to know if he has done nothing worthy of impeachment. I just want to know the truth. But I cannot know the full truth while these secret back door meetings are going on and one sided leaking is going on being run by a shit show clown.
-
I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.
You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The process can't be 100% one-sided. Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.
Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process. Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council. That's not his job. "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee. The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone. It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.
What is Schiff hiding? He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam. I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!
The hearing they "stormed" had republicans inside already. They tried to suggest republicans were being shut out but there are republicans on that committee. It wasn't one sided. Whatever media you were consuming was feeding you a lie.
The hearing was not an impeachment vote and as far as I have researched, there is no rule saying the impeachment investigation has to be bipartisan or even fair. Nonetheless it was a committee hearing and there are republicans on the committee. If the dems want to impeach they will still have to call a vote which will include the entire house.
Demanding complete transparency before an actual vote to impeach is ridiculous. Would a police detective tell the suspect everything he had and the identity of all the witnesses before an indictment? Of course not. People like Lindsey Graham are making a claim that sounds good but rests upon people not understanding the process. The Trump lovers eat it up because it confirms what they want to believe and they never bother to look deeper.
-
The hearing they "stormed" had republicans inside already. They tried to suggest republicans were being shut out but there are republicans on that committee. It wasn't one sided. Whatever media you were consuming was feeding you a lie.
The hearing was not an impeachment vote and as far as I have researched, there is no rule saying the impeachment investigation has to be bipartisan or even fair. Nonetheless it was a committee hearing and there are republicans on the committee. If the dems want to impeach they will still have to call a vote which will include the entire house.
Demanding complete transparency before an actual vote to impeach is ridiculous. Would a police detective tell the suspect everything he had and the identity of all the witnesses before an indictment? Of course not. People like Lindsey Graham are making a claim that sounds good but rests upon people not understanding the process. The Trump lovers eat it up because it confirms what they want to believe and they never bother to look deeper.
Ridiculous?
The Dems in the House started impeachment proceedings within 2 months of the so-called complaint.
In the 70s, before the impeachment articles were written, the judicial committee TOOK A VOTE on opening an inquiry -- and that was AFTER more than a year long investigation by independent counsel.
In the 90s, before the impeachment articles were written, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings based on the Starr report -- it took 4 years to get from Paula Jones' lawsuit to the impeachment vote.
In both cases, there was a vote to BEGIN the impeachment inquiry. Only after that was there a vote on the articles of impeachment.
The PURPOSE for the initial vote is to DISCUSS AND DEBATE the RULES of the inquiry -- who gets to issue subpoenas, what limits there may be on subpoenas, etc.
The only thing ridiculous is that ONE MAJORITY PARTY is initiating an impeachment inquiry without holding a single vote -- not in committee and not in the chamber.
Pelosi is ignoring precedent -- the same Pelosi who cries "Trump is going against precedent" time and again.
Impeachment is not an automatic "We have a complaint. Let's start an impeachment inquiry to see if it's bad enough to impeach" process. It's supposed to be "We have a complaint. let's investigate. **IF** there is anything impeachable in the findings, then we'll initiate an impeachment inquiry."
Pelosi and Schiff are skipping the investigation and going straight to the impeachment process WITHOUT EVIDENCE BEYOND THE DEM'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT. That's not how any of this is supposed to be done.
Before you call our comments ridiculous, you should spend time reading history of previous impeachments. The contrast should make everyone uneasy.
This is not an impeachment. It's a coup.
-
I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...
-
I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...
The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
True. The divide grows
-
I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...
While I agree these nothing burgers are keeping the democrats busy, I disagree that they are not causing damage. Of course this is just my opinion. Impeachment is a political process for which there is no written steps to achieve the desired results of overturning the vote of the people. I think we can both agree that there is very little chance that the president will be removed from office. And I think we can agree that there is a very good chance the president wins reelection. But I believe impeachment is very much a reality here at the worst. And a censure of the president is going to occur at the very least. I believe either one will occur. These nothing burgers are being created to create a precedent as a way to impeach a president in the future. Not just as a political game to try and win the next election. Just remember this is my opinion only.
Pelosi is a smart cookie. She understands that they are not required to follow precedent here. She can create her own precedent and she is. This is the damage these nothing burgers are causing. While I am not the biggest fan of president Trump, we would be lucky to get another conservative president in the future. The day will come when the democrats have the votes in the house and the senate with a conservative president. What better way to get rid of a president who opposes you? Just follow the precedent from the 2019-2020 impeachment proceedings. Make shit up, keep it behind closed doors so the people and the majority of the House of Representatives cannot see the entire truth. Then present your one sided evidence to the people and the House of Representatives and ask for a vote to impeach.
As an example, there is a particular person I see here that is not standing up against these closed door hearings. And from what little I have read, they see nothing wrong with them. And they seem to see value to these nothing burgers. This to me is the damage these nothing burgers cause. Just the fact that these nothing burgers place doubt in the minds of naive people is enough for those who are not capable of seeing these nothing burgers for what they truly are, nothing. So in some minds who are not open enough to see the bigger picture, these nothing burgers are something. And if properly controlled and presented by House controllers and the MSM there will be enough nothing burgers to impeach their political opponent now and in the future.
I believe we are in a constitutional crisis. This is all about power and control for now and in the future. It the bigger picture here. A new history book is being written by Pelosi and Schiff on how to rid yourself of your political opponent within the framework of the constitution. All using nothing burgers. Guaranteed the Republicans will use this playbook someday as well. It is just a matter of time. If this isn’t the greatest argument that we are progressively moving to socialism, I don’t know what is?
Again, this is JMHO.
-
I don’t know this website but I like this article about following precedent for impeachment.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/rodino-precedent-matters
-
I agree with you Inspector. And agree these politicians have strayed very far from the Constitution.
If they are not put in check very soon, and a reformation of the core values are not accomplished, then this country, and the great experiment in personal freedom will be done.
Decades of slow and steady indoctrination of young minds, in all these huge cities, have come to a tipping point. One side of this nation still believes in freedom, the rest in a false freedom of do whatever you please with little moral compass, and even less belief in personal freedom of anyone else with any opposing view. They clamor to suck on the teet of socialist "freebies" and that false sense of security government must provide to them.
Maybe what I was trying to say was the damage has already been done, and any more damage they might cause will either solidify belief in freedom, or cause an irreversible spiral into some sick form of forced socialism.
The day they outlaw our arms is they day they will try to take over
-
The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
But no one ever does that with what Trump says...
-
Ridiculous?
The Dems in the House started impeachment proceedings within 2 months of the so-called complaint.
In the 70s, before the impeachment articles were written, the judicial committee TOOK A VOTE on opening an inquiry -- and that was AFTER more than a year long investigation by independent counsel.
In the 90s, before the impeachment articles were written, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings based on the Starr report -- it took 4 years to get from Paula Jones' lawsuit to the impeachment vote.
In both cases, there was a vote to BEGIN the impeachment inquiry. Only after that was there a vote on the articles of impeachment.
The PURPOSE for the initial vote is to DISCUSS AND DEBATE the RULES of the inquiry -- who gets to issue subpoenas, what limits there may be on subpoenas, etc.
The only thing ridiculous is that ONE MAJORITY PARTY is initiating an impeachment inquiry without holding a single vote -- not in committee and not in the chamber.
Pelosi is ignoring precedent -- the same Pelosi who cries "Trump is going against precedent" time and again.
Impeachment is not an automatic "We have a complaint. Let's start an impeachment inquiry to see if it's bad enough to impeach" process. It's supposed to be "We have a complaint. let's investigate. **IF** there is anything impeachable in the findings, then we'll initiate an impeachment inquiry."
Pelosi and Schiff are skipping the investigation and going straight to the impeachment process WITHOUT EVIDENCE BEYOND THE DEM'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT. That's not how any of this is supposed to be done.
Before you call our comments ridiculous, you should spend time reading history of previous impeachments. The contrast should make everyone uneasy.
This is not an impeachment. It's a coup.
"The House Judiciary Committee voted to formally begin an impeachment inquiry on September 12, along party lines."
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump-nancy-pelosi
There is no real book or much of a precedent on how long these things should take.
"In past presidential impeachments, the House has formally voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings. But this step has been skipped on occasion in the impeachment of judges, and it’s entirely the product of custom and internal House rules (themselves interpreted and controlled by the House majority at a given time)."
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-impeachment-process.html
So we have custom to go off of and an interpretation by the majority of house rules.
But lets say Dems did put the vote for an impeachment inquiry to vote for the whole house, then what? They control the house and they would have approved it. Then you would have been fine with the decision to hold an impeachment inquiry? You are really just being a rule hawk here and it has nothing to do with whether Trump is involved?
Nothing changes, no injustice was done, and quite frankly it seems like a waste of time to take a vote on whether to look into something. It's like voting to decide whether to think about voting for approval to introduce a law to vote on (government bureaucracy).
This is definitively not what a coup looks like.
-
There have been impeachments votes twice by sen green. 1st one had 15 yea and 140 nays. 2nd one had 28 yeas and 120nays or something.
So the fact that no vote was done, proves they wouldnt have the yeas and wanted to bypass the process.
Add in the fake news reporting, paid protestors, police orders to stand down, phony intel, etc...and the coup all comes together. Only things stopping it is a strong leader, results and patriots.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
There have been impeachments votes twice by sen green. 1st one had 15 yea and 140 nays. 2nd one had 28 yeas and 120nays or something.
So the fact that no vote was done, proves they wouldnt have the yeas and wanted to bypass the process.
Add in the fake news reporting, paid protestors, police orders to stand down, phony intel, etc...and the coup all comes together. Only things stopping it is a strong leader, results and patriots.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
How does any of what the dems done so far bypass the process? In the end they still will need to have a vote with all the house to impeach before it can go to the Senate. Plus the republicans control the Senate anyway so realistically what are the chances Trump could actually get removed?
-
How does any of what the dems done so far bypass the process? In the end they still will need to have a vote with all the house to impeach before it can go to the Senate. Plus the republicans control the Senate anyway so realistically what are the chances Trump could actually get removed?
Why are the Dems only now having a vote for the inquiry -- AFTER they've called all their "witnesses" who were never in on the phone call? Do you think Schiff will approve the Republicans recalling all of those witnesses now that they can hear the testimony and ask their own questions? If you think that, you're not paying attention.
The FIRST and ONLY witness subpoenaed so far that has FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of the call refused to appear today. Of course Schiff for brains, being a highly ethical attorney, gave the news his thoughts. "His refusal to appear indicates his testimony has to be damaging to President Trump." What's fair about that statement? It indicates the impeachment inquiry is bogus and not being handled properly. Schiff is biased. He's putting himself (or Pelosi is) in place of a special counsel. This is completely WRONG.
The failure to coerce a witness to testify is exactly why they needed to debate the rules and vote. That's why Pelosi is calling a vote. She knows Trump's WH staff can't be coerced unless the inquiry is legit. Without a vote, it isn't. And the only remedy she has without a vote is to take it to the Supreme Court. You KNOW she's not about to do that!
Also, this is supposed to be done in the House Judiciary committee, not the House Intelligence Committee. Another break with proper protocol.
So many things wrong with this cluster fuck.
-
Pelosi and scum are going to vote on Thursday to have due process for the president. But 80%-90% of all the witnesses have been called and questioned already. And it has been leaked that today’s witness was not allowed (By Schiff) to answer certain questions that the Republicans were asking of cross examination.
Retroactive Due Process is not Due Process at all. It is only meaningful if the Democrat scum decides to do the right thing and start the inquiry all over again and keep it transparent and allow due process to the president from the start. But we all know this won’t happen with this Clown/Shit Show. The Republicans better keep their word to not even bring up the impeachment trial as long as this travesty is still in process and they don’t start anew.
Our congress is the laughing stock of the world. >:( >:( >:(
-
Dems in the House: "We're going to allow Republicans in the hearings and depositions, and they can even ask questions of witnesses. Look how fair and transparent we are!!"
Shifty Schiff: "The witness will not answer the Republican House Member's questions."
Other House Committee Chairs: "Let's schedule our hearings at the exact same time as the impeachment hearings so Republicans on our committees can't attend them."
Yeah. Fair.
-
Like I said Flappier, I am in agreement with you that Schiff's actions look very suspicious.
Yes, he is clearly bias, but realistically speaking, who isn't biased? Any committee chairs who are 3rd party who could serve in that role?
Ultimately though I am not that worried and I will tell you why. If Schiff doesn't give equal time and question asking ability to the republicans then I think he is hurting his own cause. If Schiff puts together a strong argument with actual transparency then he may get more people to vote for impeachment, but if he acts all shady and doesn't make a convincing argument of criminal action then his case is weaker and he will find less support. Plus if they vote to impeach then all of it is going to come out at the Senate trial anyway so if Schiff is going something really wrong then he is really screwing himself.
Just to be clear, even though I thought what was in the transcript was bad, I didn't believe it justified impeaching him over it.
-
Powerful article by Greg Jarrett. This is worth the read. Especially the last few paragraphs. Not only does the WB not qualify as a WB under the statue, but the president has done nothing wrong per article II of the constitution. Therefore there cannot be a quid pro quo no matter how one wants to interpret it. Sorry to those who hate trump and want him brought down, but under our laws he has done nothing wrong. I am loving this more and more. And I am loving our president more and more. :love:
https://thegreggjarrett.com/will-the-whistleblower-be-implicated-in-fisa-report/
-
Powerful article by Greg Jarrett. This is worth the read. Especially the last few paragraphs. Not only does the WB not qualify as a WB under the statue, but the president has done nothing wrong per article II of the constitution. Therefore there cannot be a quid pro quo no matter how one wants to interpret it. Sorry to those who hate trump and want him brought down, but under our laws he has done nothing wrong. I am loving this more and more. And I am loving our president more and more. :love:
https://thegreggjarrett.com/will-the-whistleblower-be-implicated-in-fisa-report/
This is evidence ... that the Democrats are too incompetent to lead our nation.
They can't even plan and execute a presidential coup without fucking it up! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
This is evidence ... that the Democrats are too incompetent to lead our nation.
They can't even plan and execute a presidential coup without fucking it up! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
At first I felt the impeachment was going to divide the country even more than it already is. But it appears to me that the incompetent Dems seem to not be able to keep their lies straight, nor keep their so called WB’s ID secret, and of course once we find out who it is and what they did, it seems the whole thing Has blown up in their faces. But what do they do when caught red handed? They double down on all of this! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I’m actually starting to enjoy this. This whole impeachment BS is falling apart by the minute!!! Actually better than SNL but that is not saying much.
-
At first I felt the impeachment was going to divide the country even more than it already is. But it appears to me that the incompetent Dems seem to not be able to keep their lies straight, nor keep their so called WB’s ID secret, and of course once we find out who it is and what they did, it seems the whole thing Has blown up in their faces. But what do they do when caught red handed? They double down on all of this! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I’m actually starting to enjoy this. This whole impeachment BS is falling apart by the minute!!! Actually better than SNL but that is not saying much.
Both fake stories have divided our nation. There are many morons who believe the fake news/dnc like its the word of god.
Many are to incompetant to realize all the shaddy stuff the dnc has done since 2016 and leave the party/support trump.
There are some who get red pilled, but not enough. Very hard to change unless you control the media.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Both fake stories have divided our nation. There are many morons who believe the fake news/dnc like its the word of god.
Many are to incompetant to realize all the shaddy stuff the dnc has done since 2016 and leave the party/support trump.
There are some who get red pilled, but not enough. Very hard to change unless you control the media.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It's been reported in polls that before Kanye came out in support of Trump, only 6% of African-American voters went with Trump.
Now Trump is polling at a record high of about 28% of black voters.
I guess they figured out a businessman making smart economic decisions is better than an empty bag with "Hope and Change" printed on it when it comes to putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.
-
I guess they figured out a businessman making smart economic decisions is better than an empty bag with "Hope and Change" printed on it when it comes to putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.
don't forget the free cell phones...
-
At first I felt the impeachment was going to divide the country even more than it already is. But it appears to me that the incompetent Dems seem to not be able to keep their lies straight, nor keep their so called WB’s ID secret, and of course once we find out who it is and what they did, it seems the whole thing Has blown up in their faces. But what do they do when caught red handed? They double down on all of this! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I’m actually starting to enjoy this. This whole impeachment BS is falling apart by the minute!!! Actually better than SNL but that is not saying much.
In life, always harder to keep up the charade of lies. Seems like a certain type eat up lies. Those that have little to no independent thought. That tend to eat up whatever is presented first.
Both fake stories have divided our nation. There are many morons who believe the fake news/dnc like its the word of god.
Many are to incompetant to realize all the shaddy stuff the dnc has done since 2016 and leave the party/support trump.
There are some who get red pilled, but not enough. Very hard to change unless you control the media.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You mean like the Great Divider?
-
It's been reported in polls that before Kanye came out in support of Trump, only 6% of African-American voters went with Trump.
Now Trump is polling at a record high of about 28% of black voters.
I guess they figured out a businessman making smart economic decisions is better than an empty bag with "Hope and Change" printed on it when it comes to putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Candace Owens has done a great job with her “BLEXIT” movement as well. She is terrific. She has teamed up with Dennis Prager (another fav of mine). She is so well spoken and she is very respectful towards those on the other side. I think that is what is making her successful at what she is doing.
Actually, 28% is not a very impressive figure looking at this from the outside. But if you dig down at how 28% of African-Americans can effect the 2020 election then you realize if African-Americans come out in force to vote in 2020 then Trump is in for another 4 years.
-
don't forget the free cell phones...
How could I forget this woman? Classic! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
https://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio
BTW, Obamaphone is still law and still available.
-
In life, always harder to keep up the charade of lies. Seems like a certain type eat up lies. Those that have little to no independent thought. That tend to eat up whatever is presented first.
SNIP...
You know, I thought a lot about what you said here. All I could think about is my cousin in SoCal. He is one of the smartest people I know. He can talk way over my head and use words I have never heard before. He is highly educated, degreed and seems to have his pulse on the latest fads and such. He said something to me once about Obamacare. He said Obamacare was the best thing that has happened to this country. When I asked him why he loves such a disaster and that everything the government gets its hands on turns into shit. He had this really puzzled look on his face and asked me how Obamacare is a disaster? But before I answered him I asked him to explain why he thought Obamacare was so great. And he said (Paraphrasing here) that he didn’t have to spend his time dealing with and thinking about which medical plan to choose for his family. And that the government has done this for him and that has left him with so much more time to do and think about what makes him happy. I asked him why his family was not important enough to spend as much time as necessary to not only get the best and most comprehensive medical plan at the best price. As the lower the price the more he has to spend on his family. And he said to me, why should I if the best plan for my family has been presented to me. And I don’t have to think about it further. That’s priceless.I asked him how he knew it was the best for his family if he didn’t spend the time researching it? He said it has been done for him. WOW just WOW!!! I just cannot imagine anyone just giving their family and their family’s life decisions to someone else. Especially the government.
This is the same cousin who told me how he felt about a discussion we were having about 2A by finding out how Rachel Maddox felt about it. OMG!
-
You know, I thought a lot about what you said here. All I could think about is my cousin in SoCal. He is one of the smartest people I know. He can talk way over my head and use words I have never heard before. He is highly educated, degreed and seems to have his pulse on the latest fads and such. He said something to me once about Obamacare. He said Obamacare was the best thing that has happened to this country. When I asked him why he loves such a disaster and that everything the government gets its hands on turns into shit. He had this really puzzled look on his face and asked me how Obamacare is a disaster? But before I answered him I asked him to explain why he thought Obamacare was so great. And he said (Paraphrasing here) that he didn’t have to spend his time dealing with and thinking about which medical plan to choose for his family. And that the government has done this for him and that has left him with so much more time to do and think about what makes him happy. I asked him why his family was not important enough to spend as much time as necessary to not only get the best and most comprehensive medical plan at the best price. As the lower the price the more he has to spend on his family. And he said to me, why should I if the best plan for my family has been presented to me. And I don’t have to think about it further. That’s priceless.I asked him how he knew it was the best for his family if he didn’t spend the time researching it? He said it has been done for him. WOW just WOW!!! I just cannot imagine anyone just giving their family and their family’s life decisions to someone else. Especially the government.
This is the same cousin who told me how he felt about a discussion we were having about 2A by finding out how Rachel Maddox felt about it. OMG!
I know it's your cousin, but just saying, education doesn't equal intelligence, and experience goes much father than any book, but you know this already. More for those who are reading that didn't know this.
My grandfather had a high school education, my father didn't even graduate high school. They where the most intelligent and experienced people ever, in my life. They could accomplish anything, build anything, fix anything, and still learned more. I watch and learn from them the best I could. That has been more valuable to me than any college degree I've sat through.
-
You know, I thought a lot about what you said here. All I could think about is my cousin in SoCal. He is one of the smartest people I know. He can talk way over my head and use words I have never heard before. He is highly educated, degreed and seems to have his pulse on the latest fads and such. He said something to me once about Obamacare. He said Obamacare was the best thing that has happened to this country. When I asked him why he loves such a disaster and that everything the government gets its hands on turns into shit. He had this really puzzled look on his face and asked me how Obamacare is a disaster? But before I answered him I asked him to explain why he thought Obamacare was so great. And he said (Paraphrasing here) that he didn’t have to spend his time dealing with and thinking about which medical plan to choose for his family. And that the government has done this for him and that has left him with so much more time to do and think about what makes him happy. I asked him why his family was not important enough to spend as much time as necessary to not only get the best and most comprehensive medical plan at the best price. As the lower the price the more he has to spend on his family. And he said to me, why should I if the best plan for my family has been presented to me. And I don’t have to think about it further. That’s priceless.I asked him how he knew it was the best for his family if he didn’t spend the time researching it? He said it has been done for him. WOW just WOW!!! I just cannot imagine anyone just giving their family and their family’s life decisions to someone else. Especially the government.
This is the same cousin who told me how he felt about a discussion we were having about 2A by finding out how Rachel Maddox felt about it. OMG!
I know the type well.
“I know what I know, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
-
Thought you might enjoy this one:
-
:o
-
:o
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I asked Alexa the same question about Epstein.
I got a lecture on how Trump was to blame.
If only Hillary had been elected President, she could have pardoned Epstein.
So, it essentially came down to a lack of options. :rofl:
-
:o
And when he came home later, the device was in a full bathtub. Called apple and they said its just a faulty unit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Turns out the WB is not really a WB by any definition. Make him testify. Expose him for what he is!!!
https://thegreggjarrett.com/whistleblower-not-entitled-to-anonymity-hes-an-informant-acting-as-a-democratic-operative/ >:(
-
Which is MORE LIKELY?
(1) Candidate Donald Trump, after surviving almost a year of being investigated for collusion, and then as President surviving a 2+ year Special Counsel investigation on Russia collusion, without being charged with a single crime -- including obstruction -- used official diplomatic channels to personally commit campaign law violations and abuse of Presidential Powers with government officials listening in on the call and with an official transcript preserved as evidence,
or
(2) nothing unethical or illegal was discussed on the call. This is another attempt by Democrats to use the system to their political advantage because nothing else has worked, and Trump is likely going to beat whoever the DNC nominee is in 2020.
If you believe #1 happened, you haven't been paying attention. Trump is not that careless. He has his personal lawyer acting as a conduit between himself and Ukraine. Any "sketchy" demands or arm twisting he would want to do could be more safely communicated through Rudy.
-
Enjoy!
-
And when he came home later, the device was in a full bathtub.
with 2 bullet holes in it's back, toaster in the tub and a suicide note on the counter
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Schiff now says he doesnt know who the wb is. Even though he held meetings with the wb.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Schiff now says he doesnt know who the wb is. Even though he held meetings with the wb.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Schiff can't open his eyes without telling a lie.
And it's rumored he can't shut his eyes! :rofl:
(https://i.imgur.com/MicRhLM.png?1)
-
The article that goes with this:
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR0N7rBq7Xwus43MYID54AH5uK3n4zx9jjxZbZPBkv_NcAHMtWDwZxBn1rE
-
Doc. Leak reveals millions funneled to H. Biden and J Kerry Jr.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
-
Doc. Leak reveals millions funneled to H. Biden and J Kerry Jr.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
I hope this can be corroborated because if it can then there is a real connection that needs to be further investigated.
-
I hope this can be corroborated because if it can then there is a real connection that needs to be further investigated.
Sounds like you have a QPQ with another country.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
So first two witnesses have no credibility. Their star witness, the ambassador (US) never met Trump, never was in the room and heard the actual call. And when asked more tougher questions, Shiff stopped it.
So next up is the gal that was fired prior to Trump taking office.
Is a surprise there was an active shooting at a high school this morning in LA. Asian male. No deaths so far, but 5 or so wounded. News said the shooter is a student and was 1 of the injured. Gun control here they come.
-
I posted earlier about the Democrats censuring the President instead of impeaching him. I feel that this is the best scenario over impeachment (Besides just shutting down the impeachment hearings which we all know the Dems will not do). Let’s face it, the impeachment process is not going well for the Dems. To save face, the Dems could censure Trump as a bad orange man. They could say they are saving the country from going through this terrible impeachment process that would tear the country apart or they could censure the bad orange man. So they choose censure instead. They are trying to look as much like heroes as they can even tho the rest of us realize they are nothing but clowns and they not only act like clowns but they are looking quite stupid for even starting this process.
An opinion piece that looks at censure because impeachment is looking grave.
Bradley Blakeman: Dems' impeachment option — THIS is their only exit strategy
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bradley-blakeman-dems-impeachment-option-this-is-their-only-exit-strategy
-
Sounds like you have a QPQ with another country.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That’s how I make a living! :rofl:
-
I posted earlier about the Democrats censuring the President instead of impeaching him. I feel that this is the best scenario over impeachment (Besides just shutting down the impeachment hearings which we all know the Dems will not do). Let’s face it, the impeachment process is not going well for the Dems. To save face, the Dems could censure Trump as a bad orange man. They could say they are saving the country from going through this terrible impeachment process that would tear the country apart or they could censure the bad orange man. So they choose censure instead. They are trying to look as much like heroes as they can even tho the rest of us realize they are nothing but clowns and they not only act like clowns but they are looking quite stupid for even starting this process.
An opinion piece that looks at censure because impeachment is looking grave.
Bradley Blakeman: Dems' impeachment option — THIS is their only exit strategy
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bradley-blakeman-dems-impeachment-option-this-is-their-only-exit-strategy
If I understand it, censuring the President has no consequences. If he were a member of Congress, and if the censure resolution passes in either chamber, he would be removed from all committees and other seats of responsibility.
Also, if the House votes to censure Trump, the Senate can vote to expunge the resolution -- basically an admission that the censuring was not supported by the President's actions.
"Censure is a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior."
The "group" (the Democrats & the House majority) have two sets of standards. If Trump violated their standards, what about all the House members recently who made anti-Semitic comments/Tweets? What about AOC blocking social media accounts she doesn't like after (1) the courts said no gov't official can block people, and (2) she apologized and said she was wrong in the lawsuit she just settled the DAY BEFORE she was to give testimony? She still has people blocked.
The Dems have standards for themselves and standards for their enemies. Letting them get away with judging anyone, even Trump, is hypocrisy to the extreme.
Censuring Trump would be an admission they can't find any crimes with which to impeach him. It tells voters they started the impeachment process without evidence of criminal conduct while hoping the inquiry gives them the evidence they have been telling us they already have.
I don't know why anyone would trust any of these Democrat traitors. They wave the Constitution around saying impeachment is their duty. Funny how all the other parts of the Constitution, like passing an annual budget, slip their minds.
-
If I understand it, censuring the President has no consequences. If he were a member of Congress, and if the censure resolution passes in either chamber, he would be removed from all committees and other seats of responsibility.
Also, if the House votes to censure Trump, the Senate can vote to expunge the resolution -- basically an admission that the censuring was not supported by the President's actions.
"Censure is a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior."
The "group" (the Democrats & the House majority) have two sets of standards. If Trump violated their standards, what about all the House members recently who made anti-Semitic comments/Tweets? What about AOC blocking social media accounts she doesn't like after (1) the courts said no gov't official can block people, and (2) she apologized and said she was wrong in the lawsuit she just settled the DAY BEFORE she was to give testimony? She still has people blocked.
The Dems have standards for themselves and standards for their enemies. Letting them get away with judging anyone, even Trump, is hypocrisy to the extreme.
Censuring Trump would be an admission they can't find any crimes with which to impeach him. It tells voters they started the impeachment process without evidence of criminal conduct while hoping the inquiry gives them the evidence they have been telling us they already have.
I don't know why anyone would trust any of these Democrat traitors. They wave the Constitution around saying impeachment is their duty. Funny how all the other parts of the Constitution, like passing an annual budget, slip their minds.
Well said! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Now pelosi is going from QPQ to bribery. So a self made billionaire is now taking bribes.
How many TDS sufferors will believe this story?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Now pelosi is going from QPQ to bribery. So a self made billionaire is now taking bribes.
How many TDS sufferors will believe this story?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
True story. Talking to a contractor one day about Trump being impeached. I said the senate will never remove him and why even try less than a year before the 2020 elections. Doesn’t it make more sense to let the people just vote him out of office which would give the house more than enough time to start doing the job they were voted in to do a couple of years ago. I asked him what was so important about impeaching him? Do you know what he said to me? “If he is impeached he won’t get his retirement after he leaves office”.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I literally laughed in his face! I told him that Trump is already donating his $400k a year back to the government. And what does a BILLIONAIRE care about $400k a year? He changed the subject back to work.
I am really concerned about the beliefs of some uninformed voters out there.
-
Now pelosi is going from QPQ to bribery. So a self made billionaire is now taking bribes.
How many TDS sufferors will believe this story?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quid pro quo is "a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something." The underlying fact in QPQ is there has to be a meeting of the minds that one "thing" is required in return for the other "thing". So far, there's been (non-witness) testimony that there was no such condition ever conveyed to Ukraine regarding aid.
A bribe is defined as "a sum of money or other inducement offered or given to bribe someone." Basically, to get unwarranted or preferential treatment, you offer something of value to the person with the power to grant such treatment. Like slipping a $100 bill to a Cop to not write you a ticket. If the Cop says (hints) you could "pay your fine and be on your way without a ticket", that's called solicitation of a bribe -- a totally different scenario.
Withholding aid to a foreign country until something he wants done is not bribery. it's called executive prerogative. Unless there is evidence OTHER THAN OPINION BASED ON HEARSAY AND RUMORS that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens to impact the 2020 election, the intent/motive is purely speculative.
As a famous FBI guy once said, "No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case as there was no intent to break the law."
Trump supposedly was withholding aid already approved for Ukraine, not promising aid. The closest they can get to any crime would be extortion, or blackmail. "Do this (investigate), or I'm going to do something which you won't like (block the aid package)."
I bet the Dems will switch to blackmail/extortion as the "crime" when bribery fizzles out.
-
True story. Talking to a contractor one day about Trump being impeached. I said the senate will never remove him and why even try less than a year before the 2020 elections. Doesn’t it make more sense to let the people just vote him out of office which would give the house more than enough time to start doing the job they were voted in to do a couple of years ago. I asked him what was so important about impeaching him? Do you know what he said to me? “If he is impeached he won’t get his retirement after he leaves office”.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I literally laughed in his face! I told him that Trump is already donating his $400k a year back to the government. And what does a BILLIONAIRE care about $400k a year? He changed the subject back to work.
I am really concerned about the beliefs of some uninformed voters out there.
Should have also added i that hes a billionaire, so he could care less about his "retirement" and has a better one already set up decades ago since he is in his 70s.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Schiff now says he doesnt know who the wb is. Even though he held meetings with the wb.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Is it possible he met the person but never ascertained his actual identity? A witness can interact with law enforcement without the police officer ever knowing who the person really is. Depends how one defines what it means to know someone.
-
Is it possible he met the person but never ascertained his actual identity? A witness can interact with law enforcement without the police officer ever knowing who the person really is. Depends how one defines what it means to know someone.
It's more likely Schiff is lying, since he seems to do so whenever his comments involve Trump.
I can list plenty of examples. Just ask.
Schiff lied when he said he didn't know the WB. After it came out his staff had contact with the WB BEFORE the complaint was filed, he changed his story -- yet he never volunteered that tidbit to the House Intel Committee. Lie of omission.
If stories are true, the WB worked with 2 of Schiff's staffers in the past.
At what point do you stop believing "Schiff talked to the WB but had no idea who he is?" :wacko:
And your comparison with Cops and witnesses is wrong. Schiff is not a Cop. He's a high level gov't official who doesn't meet people without knowing who they are and why they are meeting.
If you haven't figured out Schiff can't be trusted, you weren't paying attention the last 3 years.
-
It's more likely Schiff is lying, since he seems to do so whenever his comments involve Trump.
I can list plenty of examples. Just ask.
Schiff lied when he said he didn't know the WB. After it came out his staff had contact with the WB BEFORE the complaint was filed, he changed his story -- yet he never volunteered that tidbit to the House Intel Committee. Lie of omission.
If stories are true, the WB worked with 2 of Schiff's staffers in the past.
At what point do you stop believing "Schiff talked to the WB but had no idea who he is?" :wacko:
And your comparison with Cops and witnesses is wrong. Schiff is not a Cop. He's a high level gov't official who doesn't meet people without knowing who they are and why they are meeting.
If you haven't figured out Schiff can't be trusted, you weren't paying attention the last 3 years.
I am not going to jump on the conspiracy story rumors because that is pure speculation at this point. If that becomes something proven then I will reassess.
The one thing we do know for now is that Schiff was dishonest about his meeting with the whistleblower. However the question is of what significance is that fact? I think it is a safe suspicion that Schiff helped the whistleblower craft the complaint but that doesn't mean the whistleblower's complaint can't be trusted. Would it be improper for a whistleblower to consult a congress person for guidance prior to filing an official whistleblower complaint? Imagine you were a whistleblower with something against a democrat president. You would know the dems would pull out their dogs to try and attack you so wouldn't you consider going to a republican congressman before filing an official complaint? (Note that I am not saying that is what actually happened but considering a plausible and justifiable explanation)
How do you know Schiff knows the identity of everyone he meets prior to the meeting? I don't find it implausible that an attorney arranged a meeting between Schiff and the whistleblower if Schiff thought it was going to give him some dirt he could throw at Trump.
-
I am not going to jump on the conspiracy story rumors because that is pure speculation at this point. If that becomes something proven then I will reassess.
The one thing we do know for now is that Schiff was dishonest about his meeting with the whistleblower. However the question is of what significance is that fact? I think it is a safe suspicion that Schiff helped the whistleblower craft the complaint but that doesn't mean the whistleblower's complaint can't be trusted. Would it be improper for a whistleblower to consult a congress person for guidance prior to filing an official whistleblower complaint? Imagine you were a whistleblower with something against a democrat president. You would know the dems would pull out their dogs to try and attack you so wouldn't you consider going to a republican congressman before filing an official complaint? (Note that I am not saying that is what actually happened but considering a plausible and justifiable explanation)
How do you know Schiff knows the identity of everyone he meets prior to the meeting? I don't find it implausible that an attorney arranged a meeting between Schiff and the whistleblower if Schiff thought it was going to give him some dirt he could throw at Trump.
Yes, it is inappropriate to run to the CHAIR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, Adam Schiff and his staff, before (1) working the issue through his chain of command, (2) contacting his legal office, (3) filing an IG complaint, or any other office specifically staffed to field such complaints.
Since you aren't in gov't and are only doing hypotheticals based on your limited knowledge, let me explain it to you:
The government, whether you are a civilian employee, a contractor, military or elected/appointed official, provides a formal complaint system with contacts at all levels of your chain of command/supervisory managers.
If you feel you can't trust your bosses because they are the subject of the complaint, have been informed and done nothing, or you fear retaliation, you can go to any number of people who will record your complaint and assign it to someone to investigate without divulging who lodged the complaint. Even in my company, we've had people file complaints -- current and former employees -- which initiated an investigation that included interviews with managers and coworkers. The person who filed the complaint was never identified during the interviews.
So, by running to Congress, he violated the process EVERYONE IS TRAINED TO KNOW EXISTS. They give annual training to every single gov't employee, so there's no reason for the WB to do what he did.
The telling fact is that Schiff took no action until after the IG complaint was filed and investigated. Only after nothing came of it did Schiff and Pelosi start the impeachment train rolling.
The IG investigation determined the complaint was not sufficient to report to Congressional oversight. The only reason the IG complaint was even filed is because Schiff's office knew that was the proper procedure.
So, Schiff's staff directed the WB to contact the "#coup has begun" lawyer to help draft the complaint.
I'm not a mind reader, but I'll bet a dozen donuts the WB went to Schiff's staff because he knew the complaint didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Their only strategy was to pretend to use the formal IG complaint system in hopes of hiding the WB's identity, and allow Schiff to use it as the impetus for an inquiry-impeachment-removal hail Mary pass.
-
The LTC who testified, not only changed his story from his disposition, but he said that he didn't have anyone to report his "story" to. So instead he told his brother. I didn' t know his brother had security clearance.
Remember when General Flynn changed his story, he was charged with perjury because he forgot to mention 1 or 2 meetings with Russian officials about ISIS in the middle east. Meetings of which were all cleared by the Obama admin.
Word on the block is the purple heart the LTC received was a gimme also. There was a mortar that landed 75m from his position and he claimed he was "hurt". I've heard of a CSM's getting a purple heart because they tripped and fell in the FOB and hurt his back. The FOB was not under attack of any sort. Same with CAB's.
-
Yes, it is inappropriate to run to the CHAIR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, Adam Schiff and his staff, before (1) working the issue through his chain of command, (2) contacting his legal office, (3) filing an IG complaint, or any other office specifically staffed to field such complaints.
Since you aren't in gov't and are only doing hypotheticals based on your limited knowledge, let me explain it to you:
The government, whether you are a civilian employee, a contractor, military or elected/appointed official, provides a formal complaint system with contacts at all levels of your chain of command/supervisory managers.
If you feel you can't trust your bosses because they are the subject of the complaint, have been informed and done nothing, or you fear retaliation, you can go to any number of people who will record your complaint and assign it to someone to investigate without divulging who lodged the complaint. Even in my company, we've had people file complaints -- current and former employees -- which initiated an investigation that included interviews with managers and coworkers. The person who filed the complaint was never identified during the interviews.
So, by running to Congress, he violated the process EVERYONE IS TRAINED TO KNOW EXISTS. They give annual training to every single gov't employee, so there's no reason for the WB to do what he did.
The telling fact is that Schiff took no action until after the IG complaint was filed and investigated. Only after nothing came of it did Schiff and Pelosi start the impeachment train rolling.
The IG investigation determined the complaint was not sufficient to report to Congressional oversight. The only reason the IG complaint was even filed is because Schiff's office knew that was the proper procedure.
So, Schiff's staff directed the WB to contact the "#coup has begun" lawyer to help draft the complaint.
I'm not a mind reader, but I'll bet a dozen donuts the WB went to Schiff's staff because he knew the complaint didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Their only strategy was to pretend to use the formal IG complaint system in hopes of hiding the WB's identity, and allow Schiff to use it as the impetus for an inquiry-impeachment-removal hail Mary pass.
A whistleblower can take a complaint to congress if they already filed the complaint with the IG and no action was taken. Initially the IG didn't release the complaint within the proscribed time frame but did so after consulting with legal counsel for advice IIRC. So we know Schiff met the whistleblower at some level but was that before the complaint to the IG was filed or was that after in which case the whistleblower was not wrong.
"In a case such as the present situation, the whistleblower would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing to take their complaint straight to a sitting member of Congress, especially an intelligence committee chair like Schiff."
https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/qa-on-whistleblower-complaint-being-withheld-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/
In fact it was quite common for whistleblowers to contact congress with their issues.
"In a 2016 story in The Intercept, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the committee received whistleblower complaints in the “dozens” each year from both the intelligence community inspector general “and via individuals who approach the committee directly.”"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/
So it really doesn't look like the whistleblower did anything wrong, the only fishy thing is why Schiff wasn't honest that there had been some contact between his office and the whistleblower.
-
:rofl:
-
A whistleblower can take a complaint to congress if they already filed the complaint with the IG and no action was taken. Initially the IG didn't release the complaint within the proscribed time frame but did so after consulting with legal counsel for advice IIRC. So we know Schiff met the whistleblower at some level but was that before the complaint to the IG was filed or was that after in which case the whistleblower was not wrong.
"In a case such as the present situation, the whistleblower would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing to take their complaint straight to a sitting member of Congress, especially an intelligence committee chair like Schiff."
https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/qa-on-whistleblower-complaint-being-withheld-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/
In fact it was quite common for whistleblowers to contact congress with their issues.
"In a 2016 story in The Intercept, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, then the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the committee received whistleblower complaints in the “dozens” each year from both the intelligence community inspector general “and via individuals who approach the committee directly.”"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/
So it really doesn't look like the whistleblower did anything wrong, the only fishy thing is why Schiff wasn't honest that there had been some contact between his office and the whistleblower.
You haven't been paying attention, huh?
The non-whistle-blower informant went to Schiff's staff BEFORE getting a lawyer who then authored wrote assisted the informant before the complaint was filed with the IG.
You're not getting anywhere with your arguments. Just stop.
-
You haven't been paying attention, huh?
The non-whistle-blower informant went to Schiff's staff BEFORE getting a lawyer who then authored wrote assisted the informant before the complaint was filed with the IG.
You're not getting anywhere with your arguments. Just stop.
Keep in mind that the section you highlighted in red was not me arguing that the reporting was proper, I was only correcting the misinformation that a whistleblower cannot take the complaint to congress because they can in certain circumstances. So what you clearly missed is that I wasn't making an argument per se there, I was presenting a fact about the reporting rules.
Now I ask you this, what do you expect to come out of pointing out the violation of protocol? The case can be made that the whistleblower didn't follow proper protocol but does it therefore follow that the complaint must then be ignored? What argument can you make after that, that we should ignore alleged crimes over a procedural violation?
-
Keep in mind that the section you highlighted in red was not me arguing that the reporting was proper, I was only correcting the misinformation that a whistleblower cannot take the complaint to congress because they can in certain circumstances. So what you clearly missed is that I wasn't making an argument per se there, I was presenting a fact about the reporting rules.
Now I ask you this, what do you expect to come out of pointing out the violation of protocol? The case can be made that the whistleblower didn't follow proper protocol but does it therefore follow that the complaint must then be ignored? What argument can you make after that, that we should ignore alleged crimes over a procedural violation?
What you call protocol most people call procedure, which -- as I stated already -- is something every employee is not only trained on, but there are posters all through facilities with contact numbers, and even desk swag (mouse pads, calendars ...) with the information. The gov't spares no expense or effort in making sure the "protocols" and options for complaints are no secret.
If this non-whistle-blower informant went outside of that process, he is either too stupid to follow directions, didn't pay attention in his training session, can't read a poster, and/or lost his mouse pad.
The result is what you see in this case -- a person pretending they want anonymity after already going outside of the IG process. Only the IG is required to grant anonymity. Congress is not. Schiff has been lying over and over about a "statutory duty" to protect the whistle blower's identity. He was challenged in the hearings to produce that statute. He said he would. Another lie. He never has, because it doesn't exist.
-
What you call protocol most people call procedure, which -- as I stated already -- is something every employee is not only trained on, but there are posters all through facilities with contact numbers, and even desk swag (mouse pads, calendars ...) with the information. The gov't spares no expense or effort in making sure the "protocols" and options for complaints are no secret.
If this non-whistle-blower informant went outside of that process, he is either too stupid to follow directions, didn't pay attention in his training session, can't read a poster, and/or lost his mouse pad.
The result is what you see in this case -- a person pretending they want anonymity after already going outside of the IG process. Only the IG is required to grant anonymity. Congress is not. Schiff has been lying over and over about a "statutory duty" to protect the whistle blower's identity. He was challenged in the hearings to produce that statute. He said he would. Another lie. He never has, because it doesn't exist.
Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.
-
Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.
So if false allegations or improperly gained evidence reveals “a serious thing”, then it still needs to be followed?
-
Ok, so the whistleblower should suffer some kind of consequence for not following procedure, but why should that affect the content of the complaint? If the complaint alleged a serious thing it still needs to be heard and investigated.
In your world, everyone who accuses someone of a crime should be shielded from consequences via anonymity?
We have whistle blower protection laws that punish anyone whose actions rise to the level of retaliation. Beyond that, anonymity is NOT part of the process once the report goes beyond the internal investigation -- in this case, the IG.
And, yes, if the person was SO concerned about remaining anonymous, he/she/it/they would have not contacted Schiff's office. He would have called the hotline and asked ANONYMOUSLY what the process is.
You act like these are children. They are adults with years of gov't service. They know not only the process, but also where and how to ask questions.
Stop pretending someone who wants to report THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has no idea what they are doing and what it means.
-
So if false allegations or improperly gained evidence reveals “a serious thing”, then it still needs to be followed?
This would not fall under the fruits of the poisonous tree rule about evidence.
If the allegation is provably false then the whistleblower should be prosecuted for false reporting of some sort but that isn't the issue right now as there is no sufficient evidence to say the whistleblower lied.
All we have is a procedural violation by the whistleblower. It would seem rather silly to ignore a possible crime because it wasn't reported the right way. Imagine flagging down an HPD officer and telling him someone is killing a Hawaiian monk seal but then HPD tells you that you supposed to call DLNR instead but since you didn't do it the right way he isn't going to investigate.
-
In your world, everyone who accuses someone of a crime should be shielded from consequences via anonymity?
We have whistle blower protection laws that punish anyone whose actions rise to the level of retaliation. Beyond that, anonymity is NOT part of the process once the report goes beyond the internal investigation -- in this case, the IG.
And, yes, if the person was SO concerned about remaining anonymous, he/she/it/they would have not contacted Schiff's office. He would have called the hotline and asked ANONYMOUSLY what the process is.
You act like these are children. They are adults with years of gov't service. They know not only the process, but also where and how to ask questions.
Stop pretending someone who wants to report THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has no idea what they are doing and what it means.
I already told you, if the whistleblower violated a policy, procedure, or guideline then they can suffer the consequences but that doesn't mean you then ignore the crime being reported. You are failing to justify why the content of the complaint should be ignored just because the procedure wasn't followed.
-
I already told you, if the whistleblower violated a policy, procedure, or guideline then they can suffer the consequences but that doesn't mean you then ignore the crime being reported. You are failing to justify why the content of the complaint should be ignored just because the procedure wasn't followed.
That's not the issue.
Investigate the complaint, but don't pretend the person has some right to anonymity AFTER HIS ACCUSATION BECOMES A FEDERAL CASE.
it's not about violating a policy. It's about sticking your head out to talk to a Congressional staff, then afterward expecting special protections because you went to the IG.
Congress is not bound by the laws that govern the IG. Schiff never did produce that statute he said protected the non-whistle-blower-informant's identity.
-
This would not fall under the fruits of the poisonous tree rule about evidence.
If the allegation is provably false then the whistleblower should be prosecuted for false reporting of some sort but that isn't the issue right now as there is no sufficient evidence to say the whistleblower lied.
All we have is a procedural violation by the whistleblower. It would seem rather silly to ignore a possible crime because it wasn't reported the right way. Imagine flagging down an HPD officer and telling him someone is killing a Hawaiian monk seal but then HPD tells you that you supposed to call DLNR instead but since you didn't do it the right way he isn't going to investigate.
Are you serious?
Who is said whistleblower? Has he/she/it provide direct evidence of what it witnessed?
How can anyone “provably false” something that one allegedly hear the grapevine?
You’re arguing based on “what if’s”. Again, how about proceeding based on FACTS and EVIDENCE?
-
The whole thing is moot already. The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.
So the dipsht Dees make up a bunch of BS 'evidence', charge the president of BS non crimes and impeach him, then turn around and refuse to cross it over to the Senate, because they know it will be tossed out faster than a baby poopy diaper...
This whole thing is a complete sham and mockery of the entire constitutional process, and the democrats have shown their colors. They don't give two shts about their responsibilities as representatives, nor their OATHS to hold office.
-
The whole thing is moot already. The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.
So the dipsht Dees make up a bunch of BS 'evidence', charge the president of BS non crimes and impeach him, then turn around and refuse to cross it over to the Senate, because they know it will be tossed out faster than a baby poopy diaper...
This whole thing is a complete sham and mockery of the entire constitutional process, and the democrats have shown their colors. They don't give two shts about their responsibilities as representatives, nor their OATHS to hold office.
The people on social media waking up on Friday and posting. "He's gone!! Finally!!! #HappyImpeachmentDay" are in for a shock when Trump stays in office AND wins the 2020 election -- in spite of the House majority trying to interfere in the election.
Can't wait to see the backlash from those who believe impeachment = removal. Even more looking forward to seeing how many think if Trump's gone, then Hillary will win the 2016 election retroactively. :rofl:
-
The people on social media waking up on Friday and posting. "He's gone!! Finally!!! #HappyImpeachmentDay" are in for a shock when Trump stays in office AND wins the 2020 election -- in spite of the House majority trying to interfere in the election.
Can't wait to see the backlash from those who believe impeachment = removal. Even more looking forward to seeing how many think if Trump's gone, then Hillary will win the 2016 election retroactively. :rofl:
THese people should have paid more attention during US history class in high school. Had a friend post "Trumps gone now, next is Pence". He deleted it 2 days later. But the comments his other moron liberal friends also posted were comedic.
-
We should all roll with it. Make believe killery is now president, and keep saying trump can't run. The moronic useful idiots will forget to vote and the house can be retaken, and also 2020 presidential run.
They are so confused it would be funny, but it's not because morons can vote too.
-
4D chess
Clinton foundation is broke
Burisma cut off
Soros under fire
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
SNIP
They are so confused it would be funny, but it's not because morons can vote too.
Lots. Like 63 Mil in 2016
-
4D chess
Clinton foundation is broke
Burisma cut off
Soros under fire
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
If you follow the series of events, Trump was attacked over Ukraine because he dared to go after one of the DNC's top people: Joe Biden. In DC, that's just not done.
Once Joe declared is candidacy, the Party ramped up their efforts to prop him up and protect him. Why else would his poll numbers remain so far ahead of others after all the gaffs and scandals?
If Joe gets the nomination, Trump will eat his lunch. He doesn't need any foreign, or domestic, "interference" to win the election.
Now that the Party has smeared the Ukrainian president as a liar and Trump puppet who'll say anything for Trump, it puts a negative spin on any investigation into Biden.
They are terrified and panicking. It shows.
-
If you follow the series of events, Trump was attacked over Ukraine because he dared to go after one of the DNC's top people: Joe Biden. In DC, that's just not done.
Once Joe declared is candidacy, the Party ramped up their efforts to prop him up and protect him. Why else would his poll numbers remain so far ahead of others after all the gaffs and scandals?
If Joe gets the nomination, Trump will eat his lunch. He doesn't need any foreign, or domestic, "interference" to win the election.
Now that the Party has smeared the Ukrainian president as a liar and Trump puppet who'll say anything for Trump, it puts a negative spin on any investigation into Biden.
They are terrified and panicking. It shows.
Don't forget who else has children working in Ukraine power companies as well.
-
I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?
But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html
-
I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?
But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html
So, now that Obama can't be impeached for using the power of his office to perform illegal surveillance on a member of the GOP nominee's campaign, maybe an indictment would be feasible? He violated a lot of people's Constitutional rights using a DNC-commissioned pack of lies as the basis.
Obama also lied about knowing Clinton had a private email server and wasn't using the State Department address she was required to use.
They called the Trump surveillance "matter" a counter-intelligence investigation.
Seems appropriate, since all the facts they used ran counter to any intelligent justification. :wacko:
-
I personally believe the announcement of the continuation of impeaching the president on the heels of the announcement that Durham is criminally investigating Brennan is no coincidence. Brennan’s boss was Obama. I believe the closer Durham gets to the top the more virulent the attack on Trump is going to get. And the more unhinged the Dems will become. Let’s face it, a grand jury indictment was just unveiled for 8 defendants that collected illegal campaign funds and shoveled them over to Hillary and Schiff (as well as others) during the 2016 election. Getting a little too close for comfort?
But if that isn’t already too close for comfort, James Clapper admitted in an interview that the spying on Trump probably would have never happened if it were not for President Obama approval of it. Also, Judicial Watch has some documentation already from FOIA requests showing at the very least Obama knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Durham is going to find out the truth, and I think Obama was in deep in this and he is going down as well as Brennan, Hillary and Comey. Clapper is a weasel and will probably fold and sing like a parrot. Actually, he already has started:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html
I failed to mention that the illegal campaign funds were all from foreign donors. Talk about a foreign entity interfering in our 2016 election! :wacko:
-
I failed to mention that the illegal campaign funds were all from foreign donors. Talk about a foreign entity interfering in our 2016 election! :wacko:
One of the Obama "scandal-free scandals" that never made it into the mainstream media was about his campaign contribution servers.
They were set up in China, and unlike Romney's donation software, Obama's didn't verify the IP you connected from was a US-based IP.
The general conclusion was that anyone from any country could make donations under any assumed name, and the records could never tie back the the donor's actual location.
I had a hard time believing that was never investigated until I saw what a bunch of lying, cheating, criminal minded asshats were working under Obama in the Justice Department.
I'm still waiting to find out where the missing $6B under Secretary of State Clinton went.
-
The whole thing is moot already. The whistle blower made a 'complaint', the 'authorities' are supposed to follow up and investigate, the original complaint turned up ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME.
I think that is an inaccurate representation, they found circumstantial evidence. It is harder to build a case on circumstantial evidence of course and arguably there wasn't enough to prove a crime however there was certainly evidence.
-
That's not the issue.
Investigate the complaint, but don't pretend the person has some right to anonymity AFTER HIS ACCUSATION BECOMES A FEDERAL CASE.
it's not about violating a policy. It's about sticking your head out to talk to a Congressional staff, then afterward expecting special protections because you went to the IG.
Congress is not bound by the laws that govern the IG. Schiff never did produce that statute he said protected the non-whistle-blower-informant's identity.
Even if there is no law protecting the whistleblowers immunity, there is also no need to identify the whistleblower either. The whistle blower can remain anonymous and it really doesn't change much.
But my main point has always been that no matter what the whistleblower did right or wrong procedure wise, the complaint should still have been investigated.
-
Are you serious?
Who is said whistleblower? Has he/she/it provide direct evidence of what it witnessed?
How can anyone “provably false” something that one allegedly hear the grapevine?
You’re arguing based on “what if’s”. Again, how about proceeding based on FACTS and EVIDENCE?
The whistleblower does not have to have direct evidence of a crime. 3rd part reporting is common to law enforcement. If a 911 dispatcher got a call from someone saying that their friend told them there was a murder, the police are still going to get sent and investigate. So even if a whistleblower did not witness the alleged crime themselves but heard it from someone else, they can still initiate a report and it should be taken seriously. Subsequent investigation by the appropriate authorities is what will hopefully yield relevant facts and evidence to verify or dispute the allegation.
-
....I'm still waiting to find out where the missing $6B under Secretary of State Clinton went.
Ugly pants suits and Epstein (didin’t kill himself). :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Even if there is no law protecting the whistleblowers immunity, there is also no need to identify the whistleblower either. The whistle blower can remain anonymous and it really doesn't change much.
But my main point has always been that no matter what the whistleblower did right or wrong procedure wise, the complaint should still have been investigated.
Wrong.
Everyone accused of a crime (or in this case, impeachable acts) has a fundamental right to face their accuser. Why?
So the defendant & his lawyers can explore bias, other motives for possibly lying, their past (serial accuser?), and the verocity of their facts. it allows the defense to cross-examine the accuser, which has a multitude of potential truth-finding benefits.
Reading a lawyer-created complaint is not the same as asking the accuser clarification questions or requesting answers for inconsistencies between the written complaint, depositions, public statements if any, and other witness testimonies.
So, unless you are afraid the witness' testimony would be bad for your case, there is no reason to not know their identity. The accused has rights. Accusers have statutory protections against retaliation, but not against public identification.
-
So, unless you are afraid the witness' testimony would be bad for your case, there is no reason to not know their identity. The accused has rights. Accusers have statutory protections against retaliation, but not against public identification.
The democrats have a desperate need to hide this POS.
(https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/12b8d37/2147483647/strip/true/crop/708x364+0+0/resize/708x364!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Ff2%2F34%2Fce0cbe7c41b08430fbe7d212e760%2Feric-ciaramella-obama.png)
-
The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-
And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/
There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.
-
The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-
And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/
There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.
Oh stop it. There you go speaking logically and rationally. There are those apparently want to investigate any whiff of “something” to investigate. They “must be taken seriously”. No accountability for accusers. Same with red flag law. Endless throwing of “what if’s”. Might as well have a show with a segment “things that make you go hmm””. It would be pure comedy except that many other weak minded people seem to follow that line of emotionally driven calls for action. 🙄
-
Oh stop it. There you go speaking logically and rationally. There are those apparently want to investigate any whiff of “something” to investigate. They “must be taken seriously”. No accountability for accusers. Same with red flag law. Endless throwing of “what if’s”. Might as well have a show with a segment “things that make you go hmm””. It would be pure comedy except that many other weak minded people seem to follow that line of emotionally driven calls for action. 🙄
Sorry, I’ll stop. It’s just so hard to be a Snowflake like one or two members here. I’ll try harder next time. :crazy:
-
GoFundMe is like a book deal, but for non famous people. Look how much Ford's one raised.
-
The Ukraine Whistleblower is NOT a Whistleblower by any definition and is not protected by any whistleblower laws because he skirted the law by going to Schiff first. The Whistleblower laws do not apply to him. Which IMHO would make the entire impeachment a nothingburger since the entire impeachment was supposedly set off by the original complaint.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/ukraine-whistleblower-appears-skirt-law-going-straight-rep-
And of course it appears that the so called Ukraine Whistleblower who really is NOT a whistleblower and is NOT protected by any whistleblower laws, is illegally soliciting funds indirectly thru GoFundMe.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/
There is a very good reason why the Dems are trying so hard to protect him is because Schiff broke the law as well. Instead of following the whistleblower laws, Schiff basically inserted himself directly into the impeachment investigation as a witness by speaking to the complainant first and not following the laws. Anyone who is a witness in an investigation cannot also head up the investigation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there is a trial in the senate, Schiff and the complainant need to be called as witnesses. Based on that alone the Senate trial should declare the impeachment a sham and start an investigation into Schiff.
I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.
Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed. Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well. Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity. If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about. Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.
The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical. Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.
This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation. They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.
To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm. One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing? LOL!!
-
I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.
Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed. Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well. Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity. If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about. Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.
The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical. Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.
This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation. They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.
To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm. One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing? LOL!!
You too! Presenting facts and making a logical and rational argument! You and Inspector must be drinking the same “we live in reality” Kool-Aid...
-
You too! Presenting facts and making a logical and rational argument! You and Inspector must be drinking the same “we live in reality” Kool-Aid...
What's your point?
:shaka:
-
What's your point?
:shaka:
clips
-
I made that exact same point in one of my many posts trying to convince EEF that the WB is an informant for the Democrats, not a WB.
Going to Schiff's staff negated any concerns of being outed. Otherwise, he would have contacted them, or the IG, anonymously as well. Schiff continues lying, saying he doesn't know the WB's identity. If he and Pelosi started this whole impeachment farce without having a discussion with the informant, that's a bigger problem than all the Trump actions the media is worried about. Even the IG who investigated the report said there was evidence of political bias on the complainant's part, and that the complaint lacked substance ... hearsay issues aside.
The informant also "heard from half a dozen other staffers" that the President's request regarding the Bidens was illegal or unethical. Yet, since the informant is being shielded from scrutiny, we have no idea whether the half a dozen "others" even exist -- nobody can ask him for the names nor interview them for corroboration or more details.
This whole impeachment inquiry was not even close to an investigation. They let the person who lied about Russian Collusion for years run an inquiry that by all rights should have been (a) done by the Judiciary Committee, (b) assigned to a Special/Independent Counsel, (c) performed by a bipartisan Select Committee, or (d) some combination of those.
To have the Intel Committee run the investigation in secret for more than half the hearings and depositions, leak only what juicy gossip against Trump that Schiff decided to share, then hold hearings for only those witnesses Schiff permitted, and finally have the Judiciary committee vote on impeachment without calling a single fact witness would make the Salem witch trial prosecutors squirm. One committee chair that hates Trump did the investigating under darkness, another Trump-hating chair had a sham hearing and called for a vote that was only bipartisan in that there were Dems voting against impeachment, and their Congressmen sit with straight faces and say the President had a fair hearing? LOL!!
There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.
Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.
-
There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.
Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.
Correct on all points. The big problem I have with EEF is the amount of damage he does if nobody challenges him and his beliefs (not facts -- facts exist independent of his beliefs).
I know I get into trouble for engaging him, but I really don't care. What other people think of me doesn't dictate how I live my life. It never has, and I doubt it ever will. We have a name for people who try to please everybody at once. We call them "politicians."
I noticed lately he's less active on here, but when he does visit, he comments on every single thread -- even if the comment is something like, "I have nothing to add."
He can't help himself. On the Internet, you can be anything you want to be. Unfortunately, too many people choose to be AssHoles. :geekdanc:
-
He can't help himself. On the Internet, you can be anything you want to be. Unfortunately, too many people choose to be AssHoles. :geekdanc:
Holy Crap.
You got a mirror for Christmas!
I’m not trolling. Just calling you on it.
Go back through your posts.
-
Holy Crap.
You got a mirror for Christmas!
I’m not trolling. Just calling you on it.
Go back through your posts.
Obviously my posts bother you. :popcorn:
Run to your safe space. :shake:
Too bad the New Year won't bring us a new "you." :crazy:
-
There is no having a decent conversation with that EEF character. If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion. Like most of us don’t already know the other side. I call it talking out both sides of his ass. But that is just me. I feel he is degrading people here and treating them like they don’t have the intelligence to understand all sides of a discussion. He tries to show he is intellectually superior to everyone when in fact he makes himself look just the opposite most of the time. He talks down to people and he is very much a narcissist. He is a waste of time trying to have a discussion with. He doesn’t take his side and defend it. He takes all sides to try and enlighten you. WTF is up with that? He also lies quite a bit. He’s not worth my time so I just put him on ignore.
Let’s face it, we know who the informant is. We already know his background and we also know his bias and animus towards Trump. We also know the Dems are trying to keep him from testifying so he and Schiff don’t get into trouble. This plus the fact that he doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call should easily disqualify his complaint.
I was gonna add my 0.02, but you did a good job there. On multiple levels. :thumbsup: :shaka:
-
If you recall when he first came to the forum he said that he is trying to enlighten everyone by taking the other side of a discussion.
I rember the dork posting all sorts of things that appeared to be trying to get 2A members to post incriminationg material.
He was quickly ID'd as a HPD troll looking to instigate.
When he morphed into a garden variety liberal argument lover, I put him on ignore. No idea what he posts these days, just see the stream of blocked posts. That AH guy same thing, but he does not seem to have the same narcissistic need to serially post.
-
Hey Rob, can you see me now ? :D
If I was like Moosed/DarmokatSalad/Mauidog\ Flapp Jackson (all the same person by the way) I would tell you i’m glad you found your safe space...but I’m not so I won’t.
I met EEF. Sold me a semi-melted flashlight. (Yeah I still bought it )
I don’t think he’s a cop. Fed maybe but not a cop by local cop standards anyway. Then again maybe that’s why they chose him.
Just an opinion though.
-
I rember the dork posting all sorts of things that appeared to be trying to get 2A members to post incriminationg material.
He was quickly ID'd as a HPD troll looking to instigate.
When he morphed into a garden variety liberal argument lover, I put him on ignore. No idea what he posts these days, just see the stream of blocked posts. That AH guy same thing, but he does not seem to have the same narcissistic need to serially post.
I vaguely remember him trying to get people to post things I know I was not comfortable with. And I remember someone outed him as LE of some sort. But I have never met the guy. Some people who have met him say he is a nice guy. Maybe so. His online persona sucks to me. I don’t care if he has differing views. He could be a conservative or a wild eyed liberal. I can converse with someone who has a view and defends it. But no one really knows his views because he is constantly arguing whatever side he feels like. To try and enlighten those of us who obviously know more than he does. One cannot get to know someone like that. I guess that is what he wants but it comes across as demeaning IMHO. I put him on ignore because I caught him in some lies and just decided he wasn’t worth my time any more. It is one thing to be a jerk, its another thing to just out and out lie.
-
Hey Rob, can you see me now ? :D
If I was like Moosed/DarmokatSalad/Mauidog\ Flapp Jackson (all the same person by the way) I would tell you i’m glad you found your safe space...but I’m not so I won’t.
I met EEF. Sold me a semi-melted flashlight. (Yeah I still bought it )
I don’t think he’s a cop. Fed maybe but not a cop by local cop standards anyway. Then again maybe that’s why they chose him.
Just an opinion though.
I wouldn't call it melted lol. It was superficial either way. As for the rest I don't know whether that is a compliment or an insult hehe :thumbsup:
-
Wrong.
Everyone accused of a crime (or in this case, impeachable acts) has a fundamental right to face their accuser. Why?
Nope, you are incorrect. At the trial the person has the right to face their accuser but there is no blanket right to face anyone who made any sort of accusation against you.
So the defendant & his lawyers can explore bias, other motives for possibly lying, their past (serial accuser?), and the verocity of their facts. it allows the defense to cross-examine the accuser, which has a multitude of potential truth-finding benefits. Reading a lawyer-created complaint is not the same as asking the accuser clarification questions or requesting answers for inconsistencies between the written complaint, depositions, public statements if any, and other witness testimonies.
If a reporting person's statement is used as direct evidence in a trial then yes but if the reporting person's statement is not used as evidence then they get to remain anonymous. Anonymous information is used in trials all the time when it can be independently verified by investigation. Please note I am the one presenting you with facts that you try to find ways to ignore, not the other way around.
-
I vaguely remember him trying to get people to post things I know I was not comfortable with. And I remember someone outed him as LE of some sort. But I have never met the guy. Some people who have met him say he is a nice guy. Maybe so. His online persona sucks to me. I don’t care if he has differing views. He could be a conservative or a wild eyed liberal. I can converse with someone who has a view and defends it. But no one really knows his views because he is constantly arguing whatever side he feels like. To try and enlighten those of us who obviously know more than he does. One cannot get to know someone like that. I guess that is what he wants but it comes across as demeaning IMHO. I put him on ignore because I caught him in some lies and just decided he wasn’t worth my time any more. It is one thing to be a jerk, its another thing to just out and out lie.
You may not see my reply but you have suggest I regularly lie and I have to confront that. Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie, I am not good at it, and I don't do it.
You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me. I understand it doesn't make me fit cleanly into one side or the other and people appear to have trouble when someone doesn't fit into their classifications but I value objectivity over the label of any one side. So if a democrat makes a good point I recognize it and if a republican makes a good point I recognize that instead of being blinded by loyalty or defensiveness of one side or the other. This is why I will point out good arguments by democrats and bad arguments by republicans though I am more of a republican.
My intention is never to demean so I apologize if I came across like that. In politics I do not get hostile and I see things from a different angle. I see where both sides make arguments that appear they don't understand the reasons of the other side so I try to illustrate the other side in a way that gives an accurate understanding instead of the demonized hyperbolic one. Perhaps I am not as eloquent at doing that as I would like to be.
-
Nope, you are incorrect. At the trial the person has the right to face their accuser but there is no blanket right to face anyone who made any sort of accusation against you.
If a reporting person's statement is used as direct evidence in a trial then yes but if the reporting person's statement is not used as evidence then they get to remain anonymous. Anonymous information is used in trials all the time when it can be independently verified by investigation. Please note I am the one presenting you with facts that you try to find ways to ignore, not the other way around.
Your statist, authoritarian, unconstitutional rationalizations and beliefs show you are definitely in the Liberal'Leftist/Progressive camp.
Nothing against Trump has been "independently verified" beyond the exculpatory facts: Trump said he wanted nothing from the Ukrainian president. No quid pro quo. He only wants him to do the right thing.
No other evidence has been offered to verify the opinions contained in the complaint.
-
You may not see my reply but you have suggest I regularly lie and I have to confront that. Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie, I am not good at it, and I don't do it.
You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me. I understand it doesn't make me fit cleanly into one side or the other and people appear to have trouble when someone doesn't fit into their classifications but I value objectivity over the label of any one side. So if a democrat makes a good point I recognize it and if a republican makes a good point I recognize that instead of being blinded by loyalty or defensiveness of one side or the other. This is why I will point out good arguments by democrats and bad arguments by republicans though I am more of a republican.
My intention is never to demean so I apologize if I came across like that. In politics I do not get hostile and I see things from a different angle. I see where both sides make arguments that appear they don't understand the reasons of the other side so I try to illustrate the other side in a way that gives an accurate understanding instead of the demonized hyperbolic one. Perhaps I am not as eloquent at doing that as I would like to be.
That's a lie.
-
why argue with a tree?
-
why argue with a tree?
So the rocks know not to believe the lies the tree spouts? :geekdanc:
-
That's a lie.
Hey Flapp,
Was this his reply to one of my posts? He lied to you about lying. Not only have I caught him numerous times in his own lies during discussions, but one time he lied ABOUT ME, TO ME, that is when I drew the line and put him on ignore. Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.
-
Hey Flapp,
Was this his reply to one of my posts? He lied to you about lying. Not only have I caught him numerous times in his own lies during discussions, but one time he lied ABOUT ME, TO ME, that is when I drew the line and put him on ignore. Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.
Yes. He's refuting your absolutely spot-on conclusions about the bullshit he posts.
You may not see my reply but you have suggest[ed] I regularly lie[,] and I have to confront that.
Whatever else could be said negative about my debate style aside, I do not lie. I don't like to lie,
I am not good at it, and I don't do it.
You say you don't know what side I take, I don't try to take a side all the time, I just point out where the facts lead me.
** Blah
** Blah
** More Bullshit
** etc.
He sees himself as the Conservative Whisperer, translating for us all what the Leftist/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive arguments are -- since we are too ignorant, stupid, biased and racist to understand those ideas without his guidance.
We're just lucky to have him here -- for the good of the 2A cause. Without his interpretive skills, we'll never be able to bring non-Republicans into the 2A fold. :geekdanc:
-
Yes. He's refuting your absolutely spot-on conclusions about the bullshit he posts.
He sees himself as the Conservative Whisperer, translating for us all what the Leftist/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive arguments are -- since we are too ignorant, stupid, biased and racist to understand those ideas without his guidance.
We're just lucky to have him here -- for the good of the 2A cause. Without his interpretive skills, we'll never be able to bring non-Republicans into the 2A fold. :geekdanc:
Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.
What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.
-
Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.
What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.
If Pelosi is developing a strategy, it has to be based on the undeniable outcome that Trump will not be removed from office.
The strategy has been the same for 3 years -- non-stop investigations that would undoubtedly find evidence of a crime, at the very least of which would be obstruction of justice based on a perjury trap interview.
So far, that strategy has not entangled Trump, but it has taken down people close to him.
Her only real path now is to cry "Foul!" before the trial even begins, calling McConnell unfair and biased. That bias thing is a joke. We're talking about Congress -- a collection of nothing BUT party-loyal, biased, and partisan hacks.
By accusing the Senate of rigging the trial, they can try to shift the blame for the abysmally inadequate case they developed to impeach Trump. "It's not our fault he wasn't removed. The evidence was undisputed and overwhelming. It's the unfair rules the majority set up that let Trump skate."
I don't think they can muster much more than blaming the GOP senators. They sure can't produce actual evidence, no matter how many non-witness witnesses they call.
-
If Pelosi is developing a strategy, it has to be based on the undeniable outcome that Trump will not be removed from office.
The strategy has been the same for 3 years -- non-stop investigations that would undoubtedly find evidence of a crime, at the very least of which would be obstruction of justice based on a perjury trap interview.
So far, that strategy has not entangled Trump, but it has taken down people close to him.
Her only real path now is to cry "Foul!" before the trial even begins, calling McConnell unfair and biased. That bias thing is a joke. We're talking about Congress -- a collection of nothing BUT party-loyal, biased, and partisan hacks.
By accusing the Senate of rigging the trial, they can try to shift the blame for the abysmally inadequate case they developed to impeach Trump. "It's not our fault he wasn't removed. The evidence was undisputed and overwhelming. It's the unfair rules the majority set up that let Trump skate."
I don't think they can muster much more than blaming the GOP senators. They sure can't produce actual evidence, no matter how many non-witness witnesses they call.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who cooperates with any anti Trump investigation. Do not give a statement unless ordered by the courts. ANd if you do, have your lawyer present. How many got screwed by the DNC looking for something during the statements made? Flynn and Cohen are 2 that I know of so far.
-
Agree. Let’s get back to the subject at hand.
What do you think Pelosi’s next move is going to be? I don’t think McConnell is going to go thru with a trial without the articles and house managers.
She'll wait till just before the elections to submit articles in hopes of taking the senate and then impeach the newly elected Trump. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
She'll wait till just before the elections to submit articles in hopes of taking the senate and then impeach the newly elected Trump. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Her team is still gathering dirt to flip votes in the GOP controlled senate.
-
She'll wait till just before the elections to submit articles in hopes of taking the senate and then impeach the newly elected Trump. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The way the Dems are acting it appears clear to me that they know they don't stand a chance and will lose to Trump this year. They can't beat him on policies so lower yourselves to dog shit levels and try and remove him in a way that stinks like hell. I'm not sure how they think they are going to win back the senate. But even if they did, they will only have a minimal majority and not the 67 they need to have him removed. As far as I'm concerned they fucked themselves. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
Your statist, authoritarian, unconstitutional rationalizations and beliefs show you are definitely in the Liberal'Leftist/Progressive camp.
Ad him attack grounded in your countless straw man attacks. How juvenile or trollish... haven't concluded which one you are.
Nothing against Trump has been "independently verified" beyond the exculpatory facts: Trump said he wanted nothing from the Ukrainian president. No quid pro quo. He only wants him to do the right thing.
You are talking about something different. Not sure if you are avoiding my point or failing to understand it. I am talking about the admissibility of anonymous statements in court proceedings and you are talking about what came out of the specific investigation. Try to follow.
No other evidence has been offered to verify the opinions contained in the complaint.
Not true, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Now you can say it is not enough to prove criminal wrongdoing and you would have a decent argument but claiming there was no evidence is just false.
-
Hey Flapp,
Was this his reply to one of my posts? He lied to you about lying. Not only have I caught him numerous times in his own lies during discussions, but one time he lied ABOUT ME, TO ME, that is when I drew the line and put him on ignore. Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.
I never knowingly made a false statement about you. If I did make a false statement it was unintentionally and I apologize.
-
We're just lucky to have him here -- for the good of the 2A cause. Without his interpretive skills, we'll never be able to bring non-Republicans into the 2A fold. :geekdanc:
Sorry, I can't translate into troll for you. Maybe that's why you always fail to understand.