(09-27-2019 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 05:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 04:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So, have any of the hearsay portions of the complaint been proven true?
I’ll give you a hint - the answer starts with “y.”

Which ones?
And for clarification, the "hearsay portions of the complaint" include pretty much the entire complaint.

How about the main two issues?
Asking the president to look into Biden (from the WH released “transcript”):

Quote:The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. I mean, it would arguably have been better for appearance's sake had Trump not mentioned Biden by name. But you've got to make a lot of assumptions to get any kind of quid pro quo out of this. I certainly don't see where this rises to anything even remotely close to Biden's very blatant quid pro quo earlier regarding essentially the same issue. If you want me to believe that this is so terrible you have to get me over that disconnect.

Quote:Or the whole moving the actual transcript:

Quote:The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

I really don't see the issue here, at least not on the facts as I understand them. An administration concerned about leaks moved a sensitive file or files from a less secure server to a more secure, encrypted one. That sounds more like prudent data management than any sort of violation. Note that this is the opposite of Hillary, who moved sensitive data from a more secure environment to a less secure one.

Quote:So, do we actually want to argue that the whistleblower wasn’t truthful about the activities he heard about?

I won't say there is no shred of truth, but I do think they have been pretty grossly mischaracterized.