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.   

I saw foil on sale at Sam's this past weekend.  You should stock up.   

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.   
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.   
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)