(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Quote:.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

.

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Since you are so up to date on WB laws, tell me about going outside of your department to advance your knowledge of wrongdoing.
Ken Starr said that by going first to members of Schiff’s staff he made it political and by those actions does not fall within the WB statues. He will have to answer questions at some point and it won’t be good for your kind when he does.

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Quote:.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

.

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

(11-05-2019 09:59 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Quote:.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

.

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Since you are so up to date on WB laws, tell me about going outside of your department to advance your knowledge of wrongdoing.
Ken Starr said that by going first to members of Schiff’s staff he made it political and by those actions does not fall within the WB statues. He will have to answer questions at some point and it won’t be good for your kind when he does.

IF Ken Starr said that, he's an idiot.

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Quote:.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

.

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Quote:.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and "biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm," although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias."

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

.

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

(11-05-2019 12:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2019 10:11 PM)Cletus Wrote:  .
There's no Flip Flop at all.

How 2nd hand information can be used is beyond the pale.

Are they going to allow 2nd hand information to be able to rebut that?

The person in question is so politically biased it's almost as if he was planted by the Obama Administration to disrupt any future common everyday actions that any President might take.

It's so Kafkaesque

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

The Ukraine president is in an awkward position. He's totally reliant on our money to stave off the Russian invasion. He can't much do anything to risk cutting off the money.

But have you seen Sondland's amended testimony yet?

(11-05-2019 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 12:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

The Ukraine president is in an awkward position. He's totally reliant on our money to stave off the Russian invasion. He can't much do anything to risk cutting off the money.

But have you seen Sondland's amended testimony yet?

But he got the money. And what money we are sending is not enough to stave off the Russians if they decide they want to take the Ukraine.
No.

(11-05-2019 02:21 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 12:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

The Ukraine president is in an awkward position. He's totally reliant on our money to stave off the Russian invasion. He can't much do anything to risk cutting off the money.

But have you seen Sondland's amended testimony yet?

But he got the money. And what money we are sending is not enough to stave off the Russians if they decide they want to take the Ukraine.
No.

Right...and he'll need more money. And he'll also need Javelin missiles. Wait for that to become another issue here real soon.

(11-05-2019 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 02:21 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 12:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Horseshit.


Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

The Ukraine president is in an awkward position. He's totally reliant on our money to stave off the Russian invasion. He can't much do anything to risk cutting off the money.

But have you seen Sondland's amended testimony yet?

But he got the money. And what money we are sending is not enough to stave off the Russians if they decide they want to take the Ukraine.
No.

Right...and he'll need more money. And he'll also need Javelin missiles. Wait for that to become another issue here real soon.

He's in a tough spot. Democrats and Republicans both appear to be leaning on him. Money and Javelins won't stop Russia though.

I repeat my question, for which I have not received a satisfactory answer. If the President of the USA has reasonable belief that an American citizen or citizens engaged in illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct in a foreign country, should he/she request assistance from such foreign country to determine the scope and extent of any such conduct, or should he/she not? And if the answer is that he/she should request such assistance, then what limits do we place upon such request if the target of such request is, or is closely related to, a potential political rival?

(11-05-2019 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I repeat my question, for which I have not received a satisfactory answer. If the President of the USA has reasonable belief that an American citizen or citizens engaged in illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct in a foreign country, should he/she request assistance from such foreign country to determine the scope and extent of any such conduct, or should he/she not? And if the answer is that he/she should request such assistance, then what limits do we place upon such request if the target of such request is, or is closely related to, a potential political rival?

What if the country is in in cahoots with the said American citizen? That would be my only question. Seems more logicial to go with internal surveilance. Just throwing it out there as I'm by no means an expert on foreign relations.

(11-05-2019 02:11 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 12:30 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Second hand information is totally allowed in the WB process. It's right there on the ******* form!

And if you overhear someone in a bar hiring someone for a murder and report it to the police, they take that information and investigate it. You don't need to show any further information.

Not to mention the WB report matches up quite nicely with the released portions of the actual phone "transcript" from the White House.

Actually, that’s dompletely false. The whistleblower account and the actual phone call don’t match up at all. There is No quid pro quo. Hell, Trump never even mentions the sale of weapons to Ukraine and Trump is not the one who broaches the topic of Biden or Guliani. The Ukrainian President is the one who brings up all three topics—-weapons, Biden, and Guliani—-and none of them are ever linked together by Trump. The closest thing to a request from Trump regarding the weapons is a request for Ukraine to look into their role in influencing the 2016 election—something everyone agrees is important for the US to know as much about as possible—and even that connection is not specifically made in the conversation.

That’s why public hearings will be a disaster for the Democrats. The facts aren’t with them (surprise, surprise, surprise) on this Russia Russia Russia redux hoax.

Horseshit.

Quote:As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports. We highlight all the key portions of the complaint that have been confirmed or corroborated, and we include links to the sources confirming or corroborating the information. The most significant sources include the official rough transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, text messages between three U.S. diplomats and Ukrainian officials, the written testimony of the then-US special envoy to Ukraine Paul Volker, and, finally, reliable news reports. It is also worth noting that the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community concluded the whistleblower’s report appeared credible after conducting a review including interviews with witnesses.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

And there's plenty of legal minds who think the call did constitute a QPQ. Whether that can be proven sufficiently is another matter.

If QPQ was being done shouldn't the person being strong-armed know it? Any quotes from the Ukranian president that indicate he felt he was being strong armed? I believe he has been pretty clear in saying there was no QPQ. Also the funds were released.

The Ukraine president is in an awkward position. He's totally reliant on our money to stave off the Russian invasion. He can't much do anything to risk cutting off the money.

But have you seen Sondland's amended testimony yet?

Glad you brought that up. So Sondland was outraged and concerned about the law when he was told there was a QPQ. Problem is that he can’t remember who told him. You want to talk about horseshit well there you go. That is a wheelbarrow full. Can’t be brought up on perjury if you can’t remember who said such an awful outrageous lawless thing as a QPQ.

(11-05-2019 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I repeat my question, for which I have not received a satisfactory answer. If the President of the USA has reasonable belief that an American citizen or citizens engaged in illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct in a foreign country, should he/she request assistance from such foreign country to determine the scope and extent of any such conduct, or should he/she not? And if the answer is that he/she should request such assistance, then what limits do we place upon such request if the target of such request is, or is closely related to, a potential political rival?

I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

I missed that part in the transcript.

Also, everyone in the DC swamp is a political rival of Trump. Is he not allowed to have any corruption investigated.

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Oh really? Where?

Quote:Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

Well, there's been enough from political rivals to keep him busy.

(11-05-2019 04:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

I missed that part in the transcript.

Also, everyone in the DC swamp is a political rival of Trump. Is he not allowed to have any corruption investigated.

When is Trump going to wrap up the birth certificate investigation? When is he going to finish the many many other fake investigations he's requested? Any updates?

(11-05-2019 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Oh really? Where?

Quote:Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

Well, there's been enough from political rivals to keep him busy.

Does anyone else see the irony in that first quote?

(11-06-2019 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Oh really? Where?

Quote:Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

Well, there's been enough from political rivals to keep him busy.

Does anyone else see the irony in that first quote?

"create evidence".... point made...

Owl #'s is having too much fonzies cross examining....

(11-06-2019 08:54 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-06-2019 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Oh really? Where?

Quote:Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

Well, there's been enough from political rivals to keep him busy.

Does anyone else see the irony in that first quote?

"create evidence".... point made...

Owl #'s is having too much fonzies cross examining....

Just more evidence it's all "mental".

(11-06-2019 08:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-06-2019 08:54 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-06-2019 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 04:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think the problem is that it looks like the president was asking this country to create evidence OF illegal behavior and not just show what actually happened.

Oh really? Where?

Quote:Not to mention that trump only seems to be concerned with foreign corruption if it involves a political rival. Not a good look.

Well, there's been enough from political rivals to keep him busy.

Does anyone else see the irony in that first quote?

"create evidence".... point made...

Owl #'s is having too much fonzies cross examining....

Just more evidence it's all "mental".

sheeple have either been brainwashed or enslaved (basically the same in sum) for millennia....it's only now we have this 'modicum' to express such on the quantum expressway.....