(10-16-2019 03:21 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:47 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 12:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I temper what I trust.

You should try it sometime.

I do. But c'mon man. You can't honestly believe this whole whistleblower stuff was just made up. If so, how'd they get the call transcript that matches the report before the report was filed? And why did the IG vouch for it's credibility? And why isn't trump using the law to brand the report fake thereby exposing the filer?

The transcript and WB match up generally except on one key issue, i.e. coercion, pressure, or quid quo pro. Basically the facts are the same up to the point that the WB report alleged actual wrongdoing. They don't match up there and the WB is contradicted by existing facts, e.g. the transcript does not support those allegations, Ukraine's president denied any pressure, and he didn't know assistance funds were temporarily withheld.

The IG vouched that it appeared credible on the surface (which is different than verifying it in any way) but later indicates that he was unaware of the partisan connections of the WB and that could have affected the credibility determination.

The WB certainly exists, but is a partisan who worked for Biden. He/she is part of the resistence. Everything the complaint has alleged as wrongdoing has fallen apart.

Sorry, but there is NO evidence to support this.

And based on what we've learned since then...and what should be revealed when he testifies on Friday...Sondland will admit that the QPQ comment he texted came directly after consultation with trump.

Additionally, with the arrest of the Russians and another guy today at JFK, we know that foreign money was going to a GOP congressman who pressed for the removal of the Ukraine ambassador. So, they're moving past the need for reliance on the WB report and the transcript alone. Not to mention I still have doubts that the transcript the WH released is actually the full call details, but that's jut my opinion. I don't have any facts to back that up.

whistleblower had professional tie to 2020 candidate

Joe Biden is the candidate with the connection to the WB

The Washington Examiner is your source? Seriously?

And they quote anonymous sources and a lot of speculation of political bias. And speculation that he worked WITH Biden, not FOR as you stated. There's a huge difference...if even remotely true. Regardless, it doesn't change one iota of the report which I remind you matches the released transcript.

Quote:A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner, “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president."

(10-16-2019 03:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 12:13 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I temper what I trust.

You should try it sometime.

I do. But c'mon man. You can't honestly believe this whole whistleblower stuff was just made up. If so, how'd they get the call transcript that matches the report before the report was filed? And why did the IG vouch for it's credibility? And why isn't trump using the law to brand the report fake thereby exposing the filer?

1. And why won't the Dems take a vote on impeachment?
2. And why won't the whistleblower testify "anonymously" before members of both parties?
3.Why is the whistleblower scared for his/her safety if nobody knows who he/she is?

I can go on, but too many things don't add up.

1. They don't have to. It makes more political sense to perform the inquiry which they are doing before filing articles of impeachment which the house would then be required to vote on.
2. As Schiff said, he really doesn't have to because the report matches bigly to the released transcript from the WH.
3. Because if he/she testifies, members of the GOP on the committees he testifies to will know who he is. And Schiff and the WB are wise to not trust his name to be leaked. trump has recklessly talked about him being a spy and that we used to execute spies. Not to mention he could lose his job, etc.

I'm just asking you to think a little bit as to what would actually have to take place to make all this up. Like most conspiracy theories, they quickly fall apart under such scrutiny. You talking about things needing to add up, just think for a moment how many people would need to be involved in order to make this up. And that's not even talking into account the virtual impossibility as to how the report matches the call transcript that was kept in a secret server!

All I have is a statement by a political party which stated prior to Trump taking office that they would impeach him. They are grossly biased.

I don't know if you dismiss scenarios which have been labeled as "conspiracy theories", but many things begin as a secret plot.

There are many organizations which attack the American way of life which eventually were discovered to be funded by George Soros. His actions would definitely qualify as conspiratorial.

And if an anonymous whistle blower did exist and was known to only a few, then your statement about "how many people would need to be involved" is moot.

If a high-ranking government official tells certain media reps that a whistleblower has come forth, then I would fully expect to see the hullabaloo we have now. Especially when those very media reps are biased themselves.

No, plenty of people wonder whether a whistleblower actually exists.

Right. George Soros. You really need to get a grip.