Page 4 of 27

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:46 am
by Kurieuo
I see you're not really denying that all this stuff to do with Trump is just hysterics?

Otherwise to deal with some red herrings you're now throwing out. Where are the links to my own posts? Context is everything. Re: Wiener, the only thing I can remember is his sexting "photos" or the like, and also something with private emails of a classfied nature be accessible thanks to Huma Abedin. Didn't much care, nor was I aware of Hillary being raid or whatever that Scope's article you linked to is about -- but the FBI (Comey) was "investigating" her at the time, no? Was that hysterics? y:-/

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:52 am
by edwardmurphy
In retrospect, yes, I obviously should have included links to threads. Not sure what I was thinking, other than it was late and I was tired. In any case, I didn't and I'm not going to look again. We can agree to disagree or whatever.
Kurieuo wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:46 amI see you're not really denying that all this stuff to do with Trump is just hysterics?
Again, I'm not sure why I wouldn't be denying that. Late and tired again, I guess.

Anyway, yeah, I absolutely, categorically, 100% reject the notion that the response to the whistleblower's complaint is even remotely hysterical.

As I told Abe, I don't get my information from editorials written by partisan pundits or from YouTube videos produced by conspiracy-peddling cranks. I think that there's something to the whistleblower's report because I read the report and looked at the evidence that it contained, read the IG's letter saying it was credible, read the partial transcript that the Trump Administration released (and saw what looked like a shakedown), read up on the widely debunked Biden story that Rudy's been trying to sell and the laughably absurd conspiracy theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC and still has their servers stashed somewhere, took note of the fact that the Administration didn't release the actual transcript of the call as the law requires them to do, read the Acting Director of National Intelligence's testimony that the whistleblower behaved impeccably and did the right thing, and then decided, all on my own, that there just might be something to this. Since then I've read about Rudy's prior actions in Ukraine, about the state of Ukrainian internal politics prior to these events, and about the firing of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, and now I think it looks even worse for Trump.

This story is absolutely legitimate and it's absolutely a really big deal. The House Dems' decision to open an impeachment inquiry is a logical, measured response to the information that we've been given. All of the people crying about how the facts aren't out yet are trying to distract us from reality. The inquiry isn't impeachment proceedings, its an investigation into whether or not impeachment is appropriate. Of course the facts aren't all out yet. That's why the Dems are opening an investigation - to get all of the facts out before making a decision on how to proceed. When you see a towering column of smoke it's sensible to look for a fire. That's not hysteria, it's diligence. It would be irresponsible not to look.

At this point it's possible that Trump will be impeached, but it's not guaranteed. It's completely possible that the Dems are just looking to make sure that Trump can't sweep this scandal under the rug before everybody gets a good, long look at all the corrupt, illegal, anti-American details. It's also possible that this is just a pump fake to see if Trump panics and makes his own position worse. It could be that the Dems will make the political calculation that either the President is so obviously guilty that the Senate GOP will have to convict, or that the President is so obviously guilty that when the Senate GOP chooses Party over Country it will cost them the next few elections. In that instance, and only that instance, will they open impeachment proceedings.

So yeah, it's blindingly obvious that an investigation is appropriate, it's equally obvious that the Administration doesn't want an investigation, and the Dems' decision to move forward is the obvious, responsible thing to do. They're constitutionally charged with oversight of the Executive Branch, for Christ's sake. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

If you disagree here's a simple thought experiment:

Read all of the relevant information, but replace the name "Trump" with "Obama." Then come back and tell me if an impeachment investigation seems "hysterical."

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:40 pm
by Stu
Oh Ed, you really are a deluded liberal lapping up the rubbish the media is feeding you.

Biden's actions were far worse than what Trump has done. Trump merely asked to look into Hunter's actions. Biden DEMANDED the prosecutor be fired or funds would not be released, and he got his way!

The way they brainwash you liberals is amazing. Biden is so arrogant and egotistical he doesn't even realise that he should shut his big mouth, instead he brags about it on live TV (it's why he get's all touchy feely with woman, he thinks he can do no wrong and is above everyone else). And people want this guy as President?!



Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:43 pm
by abelcainsbrother
edwardmurphy wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:52 pm This is what I'm talking about when I say "Abe is hard to deal with." This is just tortured logic.
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:49 pmYou think that because the right exposed the truth that Obama was not born in the US and you think it is a lie,it is OK for the left and MSM to make up lies about Trump.
The right didn't "expose the truth." Birtherism is a conspiracy theory that never made any sense and has been repeatedly debunked. The only people who still believe it are ignorant, paranoid racists.

As far as "the left," whatever that means, and the MSM making up lies, I don't think it's okay. That's why I fact check stories and don't disseminate fake news, even if it happens to be awesome.

By the way, this totally just happened:

Image

LOL, he hasn't even realized it! Worms are eating his brain!

Anyway, the difference between us is that I recognize my own ignorance and do my best to lessen it by reading the news, fact checking stories, and doing my damndest to stay informed and think critically.

You, by comparison, don't.
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:49 pmWhat amazes me is how you continue to believe the nonsense put out by the MSM and the left who are always wrong in the end.
Sigh...
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:49 pmYou claim Trump obstructed justice but yet the Dems are wanting to impeach Trump over this Ukraine whistle blower conspiracy theory based on hear say.If Trump obstructed justice then why are they now using this to impeach Trump instead of obstruction of justice instead? It is because of the Mueller report that came out and you believed the MSM's spin and still promote it even now.Even when the Democrats have moved on from it because it was not what they wanted.
Trump did obstruct justice. The Mueller Report makes that very clear, and more than 700 former federal prosecutors backed him up. Plus I read the law, read the Mueller Report, thought about it, and decided and what they're saying makes sense. However, the Senate GOP was never going to convict Trump of obstruction because they care more about protecting their political position than enforcing the law. The Democrats know that, so they made a political calculation and decided not to impeach.

Now we have a new scandal, and the Democrats seem to believe that this one might just be so flagrant a violation of our trust, the oath of office, and the law that the Senate GOP will be forced to make a political calculation of their own and vote to jettison the clown. That, or they figure that if they can keep the cameras focused on Trump's selfishness and lawlessness long enough he'll get crushed in 2020. These are guesses of course; Nancy Pelosi doesn't share her thoughts with me. Still, it seems pretty obvious.
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:49 pmYet no matter how many times they tell a lie about Trump you buy it hook,line and sinker.You love to believe liars who continually get things wrong when it comes to Trump and do not know what they are talking about.
I don't read editorials, analysis, and opinion pieces.

I think that there's something to the whistleblower's report because I read the report and looked at the evidence that it contained, read the IG's letter saying it was credible, read the partial transcript that the Trump Administration released, read up on the Biden story that Rudy's been trying to sell, took note of the fact that the Administration didn't release the actual transcript of the call as the law requires them to do, read the Acting Director of National Intelligence's testimony that the whistleblower did the right thing, and decided that there just might be something to this.

You, by comparison, didn't.
Prove it! You claim it is not true Obama was not born in America.You can't all you can do is claim you are right and regurgiate what the MSM reported as if it is the gospel truth,and anything other than what they say is a conspiracy theory.You treat other views that go against what the MSM claims a conspiracy theory.Eventhough the media and Democrats were totally wrong for two years claiming Trump colluded with Russia and we have the evidence as Adam Schiff claimed many times,and that the Mueller report would prove it,yet once the Mueller report came out it showed they lied for two years and Adam Schiff has never presented the evidence he claimed he had that would prove it,to this day.So they were wrong about evidence that would prove it.

Trump was not impeached like they claimed either,then they claimed Trump obstructed justice claiming the Mueller report proved it,not colluding with Russia like they claimed for two years, but now obstruction of justice and said they would impeach Trump. They were wrong again,as you and DB were both wrong believing the Mueller report had proven Trump obstructed justice because they moved on from the issue to now this new Ukraine whistle blower conspiracy theory and here you are believing these liars regurgitating their fake claims again.

You are not critical of where you get your news from at all as you claim. You believe these liars who have no credibility and continue to get your hopes up for nothing,just like now and you're going to be eating crow again. I bet you still believe the lies of every Democrat candidate for decades claiming they are going to make the rich pay their fair share and stick up for the little guy and Elizabeth Warran peddles that same lie of Democrats in this election Democrats have been running on for decades and never have and they never will because they are owned by the rich and work for them,not the people.

As for me Donald Trump has not lied to his followers as he may have been obstructed but he has fought everyday for the things he ran on so you can't say I'm following a liar like you do.It might be different if Trump had lied but he has fulfilled his campaign promises despite so much opposition and I am very glad I voted for him and he did not lie to us to get elected like past President's did.

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:58 pm
by edwardmurphy
Stu wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:40 pm Oh Ed, you really are a deluded liberal lapping up the rubbish the media is feeding you.

Biden's actions were far worse than what Trump has done. Trump merely asked to look into Hunter's actions. Biden DEMANDED the prosecutor be fired or funds would not be released, and he got his way!

The way they brainwash you liberals is amazing. Biden is so arrogant and egotistical he doesn't even realise that he should shut his big mouth, instead he brags about it on live TV (it's why he get's all touchy feely with woman, he thinks he can do no wrong and is above everyone else). And people want this guy as President?!
You've written some facts, but you've also omitted a bunch of relevant information in order to make those facts appear sinister when they're not. What actually happened is that Joe Biden, as a representative of the Obama Administration and with the support of the European Union and anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine, publicly and transparently worked together to get a corrupt prosecutor fired. Hunter Biden had nothing to do with it.

Will you now argue that there's an unholy alliance between the Obama Administration, the EU, and a bunch of Ukrainian anti-corruption activists to make sure the VP's son got a nice payday, or are you just going to disregard reality and call me names?

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:59 pm
by edwardmurphy
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:43 pmProve it!
Image

Regarding the rest of your post...

Image

I quit.

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:28 pm
by RickD
ACB wrote:
As for me Donald Trump has not lied to his followers...
What do you mean by "his followers"?

Followers on Twitter?

Followers, as in people that follow a cult leader?

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:52 am
by edwardmurphy
So this is insane...
Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called “Whistleblower,” represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way. Then Schiff made up what I actually said by lying to Congress......

His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.....

....In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!
As is this:
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?
There's a lot wrong here.

The President of the United States is falsely accusing a political opponent of treason and calling for his arrest.

The President of the United States uses the word "treason" as losely and inaccurately as Abe does.

The President of the United States is publicly threatening a whistleblower, in blatant violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

What. The. Hell.

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 am
by RickD
EdwardMurphy wrote:
The President of the United States is publicly threatening a whistleblower, in blatant violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
If the person who brought forth the information, got the info second or third hand, is he still a whistleblower, by definition?

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:30 am
by Stu
RickD wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 am
EdwardMurphy wrote:
The President of the United States is publicly threatening a whistleblower, in blatant violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
If the person who brought forth the information, got the info second or third hand, is he still a whistleblower, by definition?
Just seen on TV that the Intel Community has just recently (just in time for this "whistelblower" to bring forth his info) changed the requirement for what defines a whisteblower!

Previously you had to have firsthand knowledge of the events, now they changed it to you can have third hand knowledge, in other words being told by a third party, or otherwise known as gossip.

So they change it just in time to be able to accuse Trump. No, that's not suspicious at all.......

Some of these alphabet agencies are hardly objective it seems, anything Trump related and they either break or change the rules to try and nail him.

And it seems those earlier rules were put in place for good reason, because what this whistleblower said happened differs from what actually happened, but hey why let that get in the way of a good Trump story hey Democrats.....

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:56 am
by edwardmurphy
RickD wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 amIf the person who brought forth the information, got the info second or third hand, is he still a whistleblower, by definition?
Yes, he is. By definition and in the eyes of the law.

The claim that until last week whistleblowers were only allowed to report firsthand information is a lie. That has never been the case. Whistleblowers can report anything that concerns them, following which it's the responsibility of the IG to investigate the claim. Seriously, think about it. What would be the point of a rule specifically forbidding people from sharing rumors and conversations with the Inspector General for investigation? That's just ridiculous.

Speaking of which, Trump's claim that the report is unsubstantiated second and third hand information is also a lie. The whistleblower's report included second hand information, but he passed it to the IG, who investigated and found it to be credible. It's not one guy talking, it's one guy talking to the Inspector General, who then investigated and substantiated the report.

So yeah, as is so often the case, Trump and his enablers are lying in an attempt to distract us from his indefensible behavior. And, as usual, Stu's information is false.

More information:

https://twitter.com/normative?lang=en

https://twitter.com/GovAcctProj

And seriously, if you haven't done it yet take a minute and read the whistleblower's report, the IG's letter, and the transcript of the phone call and decide for yourself if an impeachment inquiry is justified.

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:56 pm
by RickD
edwardmurphy wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:56 am
RickD wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 amIf the person who brought forth the information, got the info second or third hand, is he still a whistleblower, by definition?
Yes, he is. By definition and in the eyes of the law.

The claim that until last week whistleblowers were only allowed to report firsthand information is a lie. That has never been the case. Whistleblowers can report anything that concerns them, following which it's the responsibility of the IG to investigate the claim. Seriously, think about it. What would be the point of a rule specifically forbidding people from sharing rumors and conversations with the Inspector General for investigation? That's just ridiculous.

Speaking of which, Trump's claim that the report is unsubstantiated second and third hand information is also a lie. The whistleblower's report included second hand information, but he passed it to the IG, who investigated and found it to be credible. It's not one guy talking, it's one guy talking to the Inspector General, who then investigated and substantiated the report.

So yeah, as is so often the case, Trump and his enablers are lying in an attempt to distract us from his indefensible behavior. And, as usual, Stu's information is false.

More information:

https://twitter.com/normative?lang=en

https://twitter.com/GovAcctProj

And seriously, if you haven't done it yet take a minute and read the whistleblower's report, the IG's letter, and the transcript of the phone call and decide for yourself if an impeachment inquiry is justified.
Then I wonder why this article came out.

"Amid Ukraine complaint, GOP questions move to drop ‘first-hand’ info requirement in whistleblower form"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amid-u ... lower-form


https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/in ... knowledge/

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:09 pm
by Philip
Ed: Whistleblowers can report anything that concerns them, following which it's the responsibility of the IG to investigate the claim.

Fine. As for hearsay evidence - CBS News legal analyst said today: "First of all, you CAN bring in hearsay evidence in an impeachment process. You can bring it in in the trial itself."

HOWEVER, that hearsay evidence has to be proven!

The analyst continued - that if the allegation is true, "This would be self-dealing using public office to your own political or personal advantage." YET: "You have to prove it. You got to get a quid to go with the pro quo."

The legal analyst's final assessment: "A quid -- the fact is that the transcript does not do it. People say you really don't have to show that he made this connection to withhold military aid. You really do. If you're going to take down a president, you're going to need to show that he made that linkage."

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:12 pm
by abelcainsbrother
RickD wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:28 pm
ACB wrote:
As for me Donald Trump has not lied to his followers...
What do you mean by "his followers"?

Followers on Twitter?

Followers, as in people that follow a cult leader?
Trump supporters who stand with the President politically to support his agenda and campaign promises.

Re: Convinced yet?

Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 5:20 pm
by DBowling
It was the Inspector General who determined that the whistleblower reported an "urgent concern" that "appears credible".
You can read the Inspector General's letter here.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics ... index.html

And as I pointed out in a previous post
Here's what Trump's director of national intelligence said about the whistleblower in testimony before Congress yesterday (9/26)
"First, I want to stress I believe the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout," he said. "I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law."
So both the Inspector General and Trump's Director of National Intelligence have verified that the whistleblower's complaint was an "urgent concern" that "appears credible"

Trump's strategy of spreading lies and misinformation during the Russia probe served him well there, and he and his misinformation machine are employing the same strategy to attempt to discredit the whistleblower and anyone one else involved in investigating the whistleblower complaint.