|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 2:08:11 GMT
LOL. You know the Ukraine whistleblower had first-hand knowledge, right? The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community went so far as to issue a rebuttal to claims otherwise, in which he stated, " The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information." He went on to say that he had "reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible."Read it again champ. That the whistleblower stated something on a form doesn't make it true. That the IG found the information credible doesn't mean it was first hand. So, if he/she had first hand info, I'd be interested to hear it, but as you probably know, when he/she first raised the issue, they didn't even know what foreign leader was involved. Here's the Times', The Daily podcast on the origins: Michael Barbaro
And what is the information that the C.I.A. officer has his colleague communicate to the top lawyers at the C.I.A.?
Julian Barnes
It’s very vague. The initial information that the colleague brings to the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer is that something has gone wrong. There’s been some impropriety in a call between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader. There’s no date, there’s no name of the foreign leader, there’s no country.www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/whistleblower-complaint-cia.htmlI know you didn't read the entire memorandum, so I'll make it easy for you, Sport. "... the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions ...” The whistleblower made a claim of first-hand knowledge on the form and the IGIC did his diligence and found that he/she had direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct. But, sure, go ahead and rely on a podcast over the words of the IGIC in a memorandum he released specifically to rebut the notion that the whistleblower had "second- or third-hand knowledge," as alleged by the President. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 2:10:00 GMT
Look over here! There’s something slightly amiss! No, no, don’t look over there, at that growing list of impeachable offenses! That’s nothing! Look at this! The form was incomplete! INCOMPLETE! Ugh. I said that the IRS "whistleblower" like the CIA "whistleblower" didn't have first hand information. (And, that they were both efforts in the same strategy to take down the president.) You said the CIA wb did. I show that you were wrong, and you accuse me of deflecting. At least give me a fucking "fair enough". You were wrong about the CIA whistleblower and can't admit that. Why should anybody give you a fucking "fair enough?" |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 2:13:19 GMT
Ugh. I said that the IRS "whistleblower" like the CIA "whistleblower" didn't have first hand information. (And, that they were both efforts in the same strategy to take down the president.) You said the CIA wb did. I show that you were wrong, and you accuse me of deflecting. At least give me a fucking "fair enough". Wrong person. Fuck. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Oct 4, 2019 2:48:20 GMT
That doesn't appear to be a link. Tapping out? I know they are being mean to daddy. But you are going to be OK. There will always be another racist moron to idolize. Just a few deep breaths. Just keep following Adam Schiff. Wipe off your chin every now and then, though. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Oct 4, 2019 2:57:24 GMT
I know they are being mean to daddy. But you are going to be OK. There will always be another racist moron to idolize. Just a few deep breaths. Just keep following Adam Schiff. Wipe off your chin every now and then, though. Awe, you’re adorable. Sad and stupid, but also adorable. You actually believe him. It’s like a kid believing in Santa Claus well into high school. I shouldn’t be trying to ruin that dumb kid’s Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 3:35:21 GMT
LOL. Crickets out of YankeeFan after peacocking to the wrong poster and then getting proven wrong, as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by formervanbboy on Oct 4, 2019 3:55:40 GMT
The Whataboutism from the Trump slurpers on this thread is legendary. Pathetic and legendary.
Not a fucking word about the illegal shit Trump actually did. All Whataboutism.
Keep fucking that chicken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 3:58:30 GMT
Have they impeached him yet? I have been away for a couple hours and hoped they'd take care of that when I was out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 4:21:05 GMT
Have they impeached him yet? I have been away for a couple hours and hoped they'd take care of that when I was out. Nope. Despite Pelosi announcement of inquiry no formal House action. No subpoenas. Just screeching and bunch of faux outrage. |
|
|
|
Post by formervanbboy on Oct 4, 2019 4:34:36 GMT
You don’t think this will lead to impeachment? It will. Just takes some time to move from inquiries to voting on investigation to Articles.
I know the news cycle is nuts, but it’s actually moving pretty fast.
Let it draw out like a blade and let this criminal experience as much pain as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Oct 4, 2019 4:47:26 GMT
Have they impeached him yet? I have been away for a couple hours and hoped they'd take care of that when I was out. Nope. Despite Pelosi announcement of inquiry no formal House action. No subpoenas. Just screeching and bunch of faux outrage. Is this moving any slower than the Nixon or Clinton impeachment proceedings? It's a slow process by nature. Can't say it's reasonable to expect more than this only about ten days after the announcement that there'll be an impeachment inquiry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 4:59:56 GMT
I'm tired of waiting on empty promises. If they can tie up plot lines in the Blacklist in an hour, why can't Congress get this done?
|
|
|
|
Post by xanadu on Oct 4, 2019 6:06:28 GMT
LOL. You know the Ukraine whistleblower had first-hand knowledge, right? The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community went so far as to issue a rebuttal to claims otherwise, in which he stated, " The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information." He went on to say that he had "reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible."Read it again champ. That the whistleblower stated something on a form doesn't make it true. That the IG found the information credible doesn't mean it was first hand. So, if he/she had first hand info, I'd be interested to hear it, but as you probably know, when he/she first raised the issue, they didn't even know what foreign leader was involved. Here's the Times', The Daily podcast on the origins: Michael Barbaro
And what is the information that the C.I.A. officer has his colleague communicate to the top lawyers at the C.I.A.?
Julian Barnes
It’s very vague. The initial information that the colleague brings to the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer is that something has gone wrong. There’s been some impropriety in a call between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader. There’s no date, there’s no name of the foreign leader, there’s no country.www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/podcasts/the-daily/whistleblower-complaint-cia.htmlSo you like the Times now? |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Oct 4, 2019 12:02:24 GMT
So a thought experiment, not to make a point, but because I'm genuinely curious what people think:
(1) Is it ever appropriate for the President or Attorney General or any other political appointee to pressure a foreign government to investigate a non-political actor? If so, under what circumstances? Does it matter if the U.S. government conditions some benefit on such an investigation?
(2) If so, is it ever appropriate for the President or Attorney General or any other political appointee to push a foreign government to investigate a political actor? If so, under what circumstances? If not, how do you balance the risk of interfering with elections against the risk of treating politicians different than others? Does it matter if the U.S. government conditions some benefit on such an investigation?
Again, usual I-think-Trump-is-a-doofus caveat, and that his views on immigration are reprehensible, etc.. And I'm not suggesting that this is an accurate summation of what he did, or that there aren't any other factors. Just wondering, if we take him out of the equation, what people think is an appropriate course of action?
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 13:46:20 GMT
LOL. Who's trading in conspiracy theories now Kay? How is that a conspiracy theory? There aren’t enough words in that transcript for an alleged 30-minute conversation. Standard conservative play these days. When there’s nothing to argue, mock. That’s usually tony’s moron game. Lot's of people were on the call. Lot's of people have looked at the write up of the call. No one involved in the process of producing these "transcripts" has suggested their is anything unusual about it, including folks who formerly worked at the NSC, and worked on these in the past. Zelensky's English is not good enough for him to have not used a translator. The only people who think some big chunk of the conversation is missing are people with no specific knowledge, or expertise. Folks started counting words, and timing reading of the "transcript" the day it came out. Their theories about it gained no traction, except in the far corners of left wing twitter, and places like it. It was shot down by people who know better. That it's resurfaced a week later, is a joke. It's a conspiracy theory, that would require many people to be complicit -- including the very people who first shared there concerns about the call with the whistle blower. The idea that those people, who had concerns, would allow a sham transcript of the call, that is missing half of the dialogue, to be put out and serve as the official record of the call is a joke. |
|
