|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 12:05 PM
|
|
Intelligence Community Inspector General in a statement released today. In response to the public arguments made by Trump and his minions, including Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham and Kevin McCarthy, the IG made it very clear that what they were selling simply isn't true.
No form was changed from 1st person to hearsay in order to file hearsay complaints. It didn't happen.
As the IG investigated the whistle blowers claims he confirmed his/her 1st hand knowledge as well as confirmation of other allegations made in the complaint.
Therefore the IG, a Trump appointee, certified the complaint was credible and urgent.
Jordan, Graham and McCarthy lied to the American people. It seem the hallmark of our current political climate.
"In a rare statement released Monday, the inspector general addressed a false claim pushed by Trump and some of his allies on Capitol Hill, including House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, that the whistleblower lacked firsthand knowledge of the conduct outlined in the complaint and therefore the allegations were based on "hearsay." But the statement from the inspector general made clear that the whistleblower was not simply communicating secondhand knowledge.
"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [94339]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95570
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We have the transcript.
Oct 1, 2019, 7:50 AM
|
|
Obviously the whistleblower was lying because what he heard about the conversation contained lies. The conversation was innocent because asking a foreign leader of a nation which has a treaty outlining cooperation into corruption is quite harmless and lawful.
If you stand too close to a picture all you see are dots. If you'll step back a bit your focus will be much better.
Barr plainly said under oath that he was going to investigate the origin of the Mueller debacle. He appointed a 'special,' investigator named John Durham to look into the witch hunt. Trump asked Zelenksy to look into this.
What he did not say is...'Well, son of a #####, they fired him..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: We have the transcript.
Oct 1, 2019, 7:55 AM
|
|
Yep..you would definitely get on your knees and blow Trump. He was definitely talking about you when he mentioned 5th avenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94339]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95570
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You have a vivid imagination.***
Oct 1, 2019, 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: You have a vivid imagination.***
Oct 1, 2019, 8:50 AM
|
|
You pretty much have said you would, so as disgusting as it is, you would be the first to volunteer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
Re: You have a vivid imagination.***
Oct 27, 2015, 12:07 PM
|
|
How old are you, 19?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: You have a vivid imagination.***
Oct 1, 2019, 9:25 AM
|
|
I am serious. You would do the same. By the way, how old are you? 95? You must be senile to fall for those ludicrous websites and the stories you fall for. You really believe that giggerish? I am sure you have lost a "fortune" in Nigerian online scams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
You can't say someone is lying when they disagree with you.
Oct 1, 2019, 8:08 AM
[ in reply to We have the transcript. ] |
|
I mean, you can, but it's not really a valid definition of lying. "The conversation was innocent because..." is your opinion. That's not proof someone lied. Lying would be if the whistleblower said he talked to an official about it, but he actually didn't talk to someone. We have no reason currently to believe such a thing. It wouldn't even be lying if he got a fact wrong, like he said Romania instead of Ukraine, unless he purposefully said the wrong country for some reason.
Not liking what the whistleblower said doesn't make what he said a lie. You can believe he is dead wrong, but that's not the same as lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: We have the transcript.
Oct 1, 2019, 11:05 AM
[ in reply to We have the transcript. ] |
|
Obviously the whistleblower was lying because what he heard about the conversation contained lies. The conversation was innocent because asking a foreign leader of a nation which has a treaty outlining cooperation into corruption is quite harmless and lawful.
."
The DNI said, quite clearly that the phone transcript validated the whistle blowers complaint. The DNI and the ICIG, both Trump appointees, insisted that the complaint was both credible and urgent.
I find it interesting that you say he lied (please point those out) and the call was innocent, when both the DNI and ICIG disagree with you in the extreme.
You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 8:10 AM
|
|
First hand knowledge i.e., a primary source or witness, is required for legitimate whistleblower status. A secondary, or in this this case, a tertiary source, is someone who heard something from someone else. This person would be thrown out as a witness in any court. But let’s go ahead and impeach him anyway so we can put another brain dead liberal in office and usher in a socialist system of govt. Smart, very smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 8:53 AM
|
|
You don't think Trump is brain dead? He thinks windmills cause cancer and that the Mexicans would pay for our wall. Moroever, why do you think impeachment means he is out office? He will still be president after his impeachment. It won't change that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 9:19 AM
|
|
No, but I’m wondering if you might be. Of course, that’s just my opinion based on your emotional responses that are devoid of substance. Is it possible that you could argue your position based on facts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 9:28 AM
|
|
You have never added a single post with facts since you joined. Just nutty conspiracy theory websites for the brain dead. By the way Einstein, I added to facts in the prior post. Trump thinks windmills cause cancer and that Mexico would pay for our wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 3:38 PM
|
|
Not to stir the pot, though I do enjoy the #### flinging in this forum, but doesn’t the threat of tariffs on Mexico and the subsequent involvement of their military assistance at the border have some monetary value...unless we’re paying for that assistance? I mean, the threat of them paying for the wall could have something to do with their cooperation on the issue. Admittedly, it’s deceptive to the American people but I don’t feel as if I’ve been robbed. I think most just wanted a wall because they believed it would help (though I know that’s a whole ‘nuther debate).
If I’m paying for the wall, I certainly can’t tell from my paycheck. I haven’t sought government assistance or had to sell anything to pay my bills. I can see substantive evidence of its purchase though. It’s there. It can’t be swindle into someone’s pocket or disappear from funds designed to help reinvigorate a dying city. It’s concrete.
Trump deserves criticism. No one is above that. But the wall’s erection and funding is probably one of the least problematic issues of his presidency. The laws governing the border on the hand should incite more debate and discussion than anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20599]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11748
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 7:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the ] |
|
The difference there is election interference. Trump wasn't trading something of value for something for America with the Ukrainians. He was trading something of value - in this case, the $250 million of military aid Congress had earmarked for Javelin missiles so the Ukrainians would have something other than spitballs to shoot at Russian tanks with - for something for himself.
The reason this is illegal is pretty clear if you stop and think a sec. The president is supposed to be serving the country and not himself.
In the case of Trump basically extorting Mexico to use their military to curb immigration, that was crude, certainly, and probably heavy-handed and unethical, but hey, we've seen bad statesmanship from American presidents before at times.
The reason that was legal and the Ukrainian call wasn't, plain and simple, is because in that capacity Trump was actually serving the country (as he saw it, anyhow, and as he was elected to do)...and he wasn't involving a foreign power in influencing a US election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5000]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 5285
Joined: 6/2/03
|
Re: The "it's just hearsay" defense knocked down by the
Oct 1, 2019, 11:58 PM
|
|
What do you call HRC's involvement with the Steele fabrication? That certainly was an underhanded attempt to affect an election.
How about How Biden's threat to have money withheld from Ukraine to protect his son? I think it was an abuse of power and unethical. I'm sure the Ukranians didn't appreciate it. I'm sure Biden was thinking about his own political future as well.
On another note Biden's chances of facing Trump in a Presidential election have never been good. Having Ukraine spill the beans for that reason is unnecessary. Trump just wants the satisfaction of getting him in trouble.
Message was edited by: orangecoloredglasses®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
