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. 

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. 

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? 

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.

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."

 

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."

 

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.   

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."

 

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."     

I think you have Pelosi-itus, only in reverse.  "We don't have to read the complaint before we know what is in it."   

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."     
I think you have Pelosi-itus, only in reverse.  "We don't have to read the complaint before we know what is in it."   

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 

Sorry, moving on :kickcan:

 

“The Naive”

Love it 

Sorry, moving on :kickcan:

 

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?   

 

 

Only time for a quick response.  I just hope there are lots of folks who enjoy eating their nothingburger.  Is it better than crow?   

 

 

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. 

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.    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.