The Impeachment Thread

#4,376
#4,376
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. The military aid was withheld just a few days before the call even though it had already been approved by Congress. It was discussed during the call. Zelensky specifically mentions the Javelins. That is when Trump goes into the "I would like you to do us a favor though..." spill.
Click to expand...

That reads as, the aid was withheld before the call and Trump didn't mention it. And you left out that they didn't find out until over a month later.

You're pearl clutching, but beyond that...

Besides undocumented, second-hand testimony, Schiff's fictitious Senate propaganda-planting, and your pearl-clutching... What behavior?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#4,377
#4,377
BowlBrother85 said:
You are leaving out a key word of what was said, however. The ICIG report described "some indica of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate." The key word being "arguable".
Click to expand...
LMAO! You conveniently left off the rest of it. In spite of the informants political bias the ICIG chose to go forward. Which by the way is a convenient policy change from prior also since it’s second hand! 😂
 
#4,379
#4,379
Franklin Pierce said:
White House aide slams the whistle-blower's letter as reading like a 'Nancy Drew novel' as he accuses its CIA agent author of being a 'deep state operative' engaging in a 'partisan hit job'

Donald Trump's Senior Advisor Stephen Miller compared the Ukrainian saga to a 'little Nancy Drew novel.'

Miller told Fox News Sunday that Trump is the real 'whistle-blower,' claiming he should be the one getting praise for bringing attention to the corruption of Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

The president and his top political rival in 2020 have found themselves at the center of controversy this past week after a whistle-blower alleged that in a July 25 phone call Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens' business dealings in Ukraine.


Hunter took a position with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2014, while his father was still serving as Barack Obama's vice president. The move raised eyebrows in Washington by those who said it was a clear conflict of interest, but was dismissed by the administration at the time as acceptable because Hunter is a private citizen.

The so-called whistle-blower has no direct knowledge of the conversation between Trump and Zelesnky, but House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff says the individual – identified as a male CIA agent – wants to testify before Congress.

'I think it's unfortunate that the media continues to describe this person as a whistle-blower, an honorific that this individual most certainly does not deserve,' Miller asserted to Fox News' Chris Wallace. 'A partisan hit job does not make you a whistle-blower just because you do it through the Whistleblower Protection Act.'

'If you read the seven-page little Nancy Drew novel that the whistle-blower put together, it drips with condescension, righteous indignation and contempt for the president. It's also ludicrous on its face,' Miller chastised.

'I've worked in the federal government now for nearly three years now, I know what the deep state looks like,' Miller continued. 'I know the difference between a whistle-blower and a deep state operative. This is a deep state operative, pure and simple.'

WH aide slams whistle-blower's letter as he accuses its author of being a 'deep state operative' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, MontyPython, TN Ribs and 2 others
#4,380
#4,380
BowlBrother85 said:
You are leaving out a key word of what was said, however. The ICIG report described "some indica of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate." The key word being "arguable".
Click to expand...


It does not matter. He could be super biased against Trump. He could contribute a zillion dollars to Biden, personally.

The complaint was verified, checked into by interviewing other people who confirmed the contents. The transcript itself proves that Trump was seeking foreign interference. And the complaint alludes to OTHER examples, consistent with the transcript, concerning seeking Ukrainian help in the election. The complaint was determined to be credible and urgent.

We are soon going to find out what the other examples are (gee, think that might be why Trump and Rudy are on a binge of late? They know what is out there, what is coming)

To reiterate, the whistleblower's own politics are entirely irrelevant here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#4,382
#4,382
BowlBrother85 said:
Whatever it is... it is not clear cut, if it is "arguable". You are inferring a lot from very little information.
Click to expand...
No I’m not inferring anything go read the edit. The ICIG chose to go forward in spite of the noted political bias... which is also counter to the previous ICIG policy of not allowing hearsay complaints. And if you bring up the statute again be sure to give the quoted text that slows first or second hand information is allowed. Or is the statute just quiet on second hand information being allowed and the standing policy and form didn’t allow it? 😏
 
#4,384
#4,384
carlos86 said:
Click to expand...

Tweets such as that is where he really makes himself look like an idiot. He is referring to the misleading article from The Federalist on Friday. Some posters in here have run with that too. Apparently, a form with guidelines for potential whistleblowers included some information that was inaccurate and later corrected. That has nothing to do with the applicable statute, however. It is the statute that matters. No form is worth the paper it's printed on if it doesn't correspond with the law.
 
#4,386
#4,386
If Donnie gives the order are you guy going to come over in the night and shoot me and the wife. Really? Are you going to start killing people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#4,387
#4,387
Velo Vol said:
That's not the job of the president. He's not the chief law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...
He's the chief law enforcement officer's chief and has the right to make anyone he * well pleases an investigator. As the President, he has the right to interact with foreign heads of state, and I'll need you to quote chapter and verse of the constitution that forbids he recommend they investigate corruption on/from their end.

So, fake procedural hand-wringing aside, has your answer run out of steam, or do you have more?

Besides undocumented, second-hand testimony, Schiff's fictitious Senate propaganda-planting, and your pearl-clutching... What behavior?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and NorthDallas40
#4,388
#4,388
NorthDallas40 said:
No I’m not inferring anything go read the edit. The ICIG chose to go forward in spite of the noted political bias... which is also counter to the previous ICIG policy of not allowing hearsay complaints. And if you bring up the statute again be sure to give the quoted text that slows first or second hand information is allowed. Or is the statute just quiet on second hand information being allowed and the standing policy and form didn’t allow it? 😏
Click to expand...


I do not know how else to explain this. The fact that the whistleblower heard it from other people and reported it -- and then it was verified as true and credible -- or that the whistleblower is politically opposed to Trump, are all now irrelevant to the situation.

In a given case witnesses report what other people told them all the time. You then go to those people and verify what was said. That is exactly what happened here. The whistleblower reported what was said to him, the IG checked into it, and it was confirmed.

THE HEARSAY AND BIAS ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, IN EVERY ASPECT AND IN EVERY WAY, COMPLETELY BOGUS AND IRRELEVANT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and MontyPython
#4,389
#4,389
NorthDallas40 said:
Case in point!

“If you look at the statute it never had a requirement”

The statute is quiet on first or second hand information. The form and policy explicitly prohibited second hand information. That is far from debunked.
Click to expand...
That really is all that matters. The applicable statute did not prohibit second hand information from being used by whistleblowers, submitted to the IG and then passed on to the DNI and forwarded to the congressional intelligence committees if it was deemed to be "urgent" and "credible" by the IG. The Federalist should have mentioned the statute in their article but because of a bias of their own... they didn't.
 
#4,391
#4,391
lawgator1 said:
I do not know how else to explain this. The fact that the whistleblower heard it from other people and reported it -- and then it was verified as true and credible -- or that the whistleblower is politically opposed to Trump, are all now irrelevant to the situation.

In a given case witnesses report what other people told them all the time. You then go to those people and verify what was said. That is exactly what happened here. The whistleblower reported what was said to him, the IG checked into it, and it was confirmed.

THE HEARSAY AND BIAS ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, IN EVERY ASPECT AND IN EVERY WAY, COMPLETELY BOGUS AND IRRELEVANT.
Click to expand...
LMAO
 
#4,392
#4,392
NorthDallas40 said:
Case in point!

“If you look at the statute it never had a requirement”

The statute is quiet on first or second hand information. The form and policy explicitly prohibited second hand information. That is far from debunked.
Click to expand...

That's all moot now. Besides I'm pretty sure the Committees will be hearing from some or all of those who heard it first hand.
 
#4,393
#4,393
evillawyer said:
Popehat for the win

Click to expand...

Well, if I were against abuses of political power via quid pro quo and financial threats in Ukraine, I wouldn't go on video bragging about threatening Ukrain with financial retributions unless they fired the guy that was investigating the company that my son made millions from.
 
#4,394
#4,394
BowlBrother85 said:
That really is all that matters. The applicable statute did not prohibit second hand information from being used by whistleblowers, submitted to the IG and then passed on to the DNI and forwarded to the congressional intelligence committees if it was deemed to be "urgent" and "credible" by the IG. The Federalist should have mentioned the statute in their article but because of a bias of their own... they didn't.
Click to expand...
Ok... we heard the statement the first thousand times you libs spewed it. Fact is prior to this the process and form were magically updated. 🐄 💩
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top