(09-26-2019 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

#3 So what
#4 Relevence to the released transcript of the call?

If true, this means they're likely hiding things that should be kept under the normal recordkeeping laws. And we're talking about the WB report here in it's entirety, not just the call.

Hiding things?

This transcript was not a secret it was classified

That's largely irrelevant. Why did they feel the need to move it to a secure server? This, as I've read, is not the normal course of action for such a call. And it raises the question, are they doing this with other information and why are they?

I'll humor you. Most of the communications that Trump is having about the 2016 election interference by HRC, Obama administration, and the DNC is on that server. It's his "October Surprise" for 2020.

(09-26-2019 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

#3 So what
#4 Relevence to the released transcript of the call?

If true, this means they're likely hiding things that should be kept under the normal recordkeeping laws. And we're talking about the WB report here in it's entirety, not just the call.

Hiding things?

This transcript was not a secret it was classified

That's largely irrelevant. Why did they feel the need to move it to a secure server? This, as I've read, is not the normal course of action for such a call. And it raises the question, are they doing this with other information and why are they?

Again - Not relevant

You have the information that was on the server

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

(09-26-2019 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

Erick Erickson wrote it. A conservative Republican.

(09-26-2019 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

Erick Erickson wrote it. A conservative Republican.

Dude was a nevertrumper before they even had a name

(09-26-2019 03:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

Erick Erickson wrote it. A conservative Republican.

Dude was a nevertrumper before they even had a name

That makes him pretty smart. You'll see.

(09-26-2019 01:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:07 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

#3 So what
#4 Relevence to the released transcript of the call?

If true, this means they're likely hiding things that should be kept under the normal recordkeeping laws. And we're talking about the WB report here in it's entirety, not just the call.

Hiding things?

This transcript was not a secret it was classified

That's largely irrelevant. Why did they feel the need to move it to a secure server? This, as I've read, is not the normal course of action for such a call. And it raises the question, are they doing this with other information and why are they?

Cause he's had several of these calls with foreign leaders end up in the lap of the comPost or other already. Maybe he should just install a secret server in the basement of Mar-A-Lago and store this stuff there?

Can only assume the leftists would be OK with that type arrangement yet again.

Federalist once again rips leftist nonsense to shreds:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/com...alsehoods/

"The formal complaint from an anti-Trump “whistleblower” alleging various crimes by President Donald Trump is riddled with third-hand gossip and outright falsehoods. The document was declassified by Trump Wednesday evening and released to the public Thursday morning. The complaint, which was delivered to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees, follows the same template used in the infamous and debunked Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier.

Rather than provide direct evidence that was witnessed or obtained firsthand by the complainant, the document instead combines gossip from various anonymous individuals, public media reports, and blatant misstatements of fact and law in service of a narrative that is directly contradicted by underlying facts. A footnote in the document even boasts about its use of “ample open-source information....”<!!!!!whistleblower????>

Article, unlike most you see on the left, then gives details of what it discusses in these introductory paragraphs.
Some other notable sections of the article:

"...Following the section on Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, the complainant then devotes several pages to summaries of various news articles as proof of the underlying allegations in the complaint. The complainant quotes George Stephanopoulos (an ABC News employee who previously served in President Bill Clinton’s White House), The Hill, Bloomberg News, Politico, Fox News, the New York Times, and even Twitter...."<!!!!whistleblower????>

"...DOJ officials determined that the complaint was statutorily deficient since the president is an independent constitutional officer who is not subordinate to unelected intelligence agency bureaucrats. The DOJ opinion also determined that the complaint, which was based almost entirely on hearsay, was not “urgent” as required by statute and therefore not required to be submitted to congressional intelligence committees."

I'm thinking the "whistleblower" would lose on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"

So this was, in effect, another unverified dossier

Erick Erickson wrote it. A conservative Republican.
[/quote]

Dude was a nevertrumper before they even had a name
[/quote]

That makes him pretty smart. You'll see.
[/quote]

If you're the judge of who's smart then we can rest easy as you don't have those smarts. Everything you spew is a bunch of "malarkey" (using Biden the crooks' words). You post as if we're reading pencil neck Shiftys' posts.

Those shiate heads (including you) love to make shiate out of a fart.

(09-26-2019 05:12 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  So this was, in effect, another unverified dossier

Yes.

Trump bots are angry today. Damn.

(09-26-2019 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

Erick Erickson wrote it. A conservative Republican.

No doubt a never Trumper. Irregardless, its not automatically right if a conservative authored it. In this case, the real issue is---Did the president do anything wrong? It appears he did not---but Joe Biden sure as heck did. We have crickets every time there is a demand for transparency from the Biden camp on the this front. All we get from Biden is the ole' "there is nothing there"---as if we didnt have a tape of Biden bragging in detail about having done it...lol---he was flat out proud of it when he bragged about it.

(09-26-2019 08:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump bots are angry today. Damn.

well when you cant get through dumba$$e$, what do you expect us to do?

(09-26-2019 08:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump bots are angry today. Damn.

When people in DC try to unseat a duly elected President, no matter the party, Patriots will be upset.

This is the type of stuff you see in other countries, not here.

(09-26-2019 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For those of you with your head out of the sand (or trumps rectum)... I bolded the most important ones.

Quote:There area number of reasons this complaint is so bad for the President.

(1) The whistleblower was not privy to the call or transcript, but had multiple officials describe it accurately enough to him that he could put the three big takeaways in his complaint.

(2) This means he has multiple people who can be named as witnesses.

(3) Multiple of those people say White House lawyers moved the transcript to a secure server.

(4) What other documents might be in that server?

(5) He provides the Democrats a path to discovery and witnesses who will testify under oath.

(6) He allows the Democrats messaging clarity on what the President did and focus on one clear act.

(7) He allows Democrats a path to pursue unknown and speculated matters related to Ukraine that they can drag out.

In short, the whistleblower gives Democrats what they really did not have: witnesses, documents, and a message.

That’s bad because otherwise we’d see an unfocused process spread over multiple committees.

Why the Whistleblower Complaint is so Bad For the President

The fact that the person who wrote it numbered his lines tells me that he's trying to create volume because he has little to no weight.

Line one is immaterial. He didn't hear the calls and got secondhand information and made interpretations from that. Look at the headlines about the call and then look at the call. You can see where they get their opinions, but those opinions are not FACTS. They are allusions and suppositions.

Line 2 is similarly immaterial. What matters is what was said, which we have. You don't need corroborating witnesses to an official state recording released by the 'accused'.

Line 3, the obvious question is 'when'. The next question assumes that this means it's no longer available to our intelligence people, which is categorically false.

Line 4 is another in a long line of fishing expeditions

Line 5, stupid. He released it. Nothing to discover nor any witnesses necessary... other than the fishing expedition

line 6, maybe we define clarity differently. To me, clarity means clear. The writer obviously thinks clarity means something more like 'if I hold it just so, I might be able to detect something perhaps in there'

line 7, no different than 5 or 6.

Again, it's an attempt to create the perception of weight by increasing the volume. It's like typing in all caps THE EARTH IS FLAT. Doesn't make it so, just because it's in all caps.

(09-26-2019 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This pattern of nit-picking details and obfuscating facts in order to claim some sort of 'holier than thou' position is really getting old. It's as if you're on auto-pilot... looking for some pedantic correction to make and then picking fights with people over it.

Where are the tapes? Where is the server?

(09-27-2019 08:28 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Where are the tapes? Where is the server?

Hillary knows...

(09-27-2019 07:38 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Trump bots are angry today. Damn.

When people in DC try to unseat a duly elected President, no matter the party, Patriots will be upset.

This is the type of stuff you see in other countries, not here.

Yes. I can't imagine voting for a Democrat even in an uncontested election ever again. They are seditious totalitarians who hate America and the people in it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraini...-quo-claim

for CB - "The Trump administration reportedly began placing transcripts of Trump's calls with several foreign leaders in a highly classified repository after leakers publicly divulged the contents of Trump's private calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia in 2017."

more discrepancies - "According to the whistleblower complaint, by mid-May, U.S. diplomat Kurt Volker sought to "contain the damage" from Giuliani's outreach to Ukraine.

But a July 19 text message conversation from Volker to Giuliani, provided to Fox News on Thursday, showed that Volker had in fact encouraged Giuliani to reach out to Ukraine — even sending Giuliani a message reading, "Connecting you here with Andrey Yermak, who is very close to President Zelensky."

"The complaint stated that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike" -- a request that does not appear in the declassified transcript of the call released by the Trump administration on Tuesday. Trump mentioned CrowdStrike, but did not demand the server."

It's looking more and more like this leaker - not a whistleblower -knows little other than Trump was talking to Zelensky.

PLEASE put this to a vote in the house. Republicans will rip the dems a new one and this will be the most epic fail yet for Pelosi and her ilk.