- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
?? - Has there ever been an URGENT whistle blower allegation devoid of ANY fact?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:03 am
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:03 am
Someone posted that the WB form was updated in '18 not just last month.
Am I wrong in understanding there must be some differentiation between URGENT and ROUTINE in classifying whistle blower allegations?
- should not an URGENT classification contains SOMETHING that was actually witnessed first hand??
------ IF NOT - that would mean that there are MULTIPLE people involved in the original matter which DO NOT CONSIDER it URGENT enough to either try to fix the situation as it was happening or would THEMSELVES be moved to REPORT IMMEDIATELY to - you know - SAVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
----- HOW can urgency be assigned to something this is captioned as "trying to influence an election" that is more than a YEAR away.
----- WHAT in the conversation being reported ever mentioned an ELECTION - other than a reference to CROWDSTRIKE which played the trump card in the PRIOR election '16.??
I have tried to pay attention to the news - all I heard from the 'impeach' side do not have a SINGLE FACT which is true. it is ALL conjecture and wishes and hatred.
WHERE IS THE URGENCY?????
Am I wrong in understanding there must be some differentiation between URGENT and ROUTINE in classifying whistle blower allegations?
- should not an URGENT classification contains SOMETHING that was actually witnessed first hand??
------ IF NOT - that would mean that there are MULTIPLE people involved in the original matter which DO NOT CONSIDER it URGENT enough to either try to fix the situation as it was happening or would THEMSELVES be moved to REPORT IMMEDIATELY to - you know - SAVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!
----- HOW can urgency be assigned to something this is captioned as "trying to influence an election" that is more than a YEAR away.
----- WHAT in the conversation being reported ever mentioned an ELECTION - other than a reference to CROWDSTRIKE which played the trump card in the PRIOR election '16.??
I have tried to pay attention to the news - all I heard from the 'impeach' side do not have a SINGLE FACT which is true. it is ALL conjecture and wishes and hatred.
WHERE IS THE URGENCY?????
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:06 am
5
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:08 am to ChineseBandit58
Think about the arc of the Democratic Party in your lifetime. Pretty astonishing, huh ? They are now entirely post- Constitutional and conducting a Coup . Any means necessary.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:08 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:09 am to ChineseBandit58
Setting aside EVERYTHING else, I agree that the “Urgent” characterization may well have been inaccurate.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:15 am to AggieHank86
There is no “Everything else”, other than your psychological need to bring down this duly elected President by any means necessary. You sir, and all your post- Constitutional Democratic friends, are moral idiots. You have no idea what your hunger for destruction may unleash on this country, nor do you care.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:18 am to Lsupimp
Pimp, you are babbling again.
Bandit asked a question about “urgency.”. I agreed with his assessment.
Bandit asked a question about “urgency.”. I agreed with his assessment.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:20 am to Lsupimp
Good morning Pimp! 
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:21 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Setting aside EVERYTHING else, I agree that the “Urgent” characterization may well have been inaccurate.
I'd quibble with the EVERYTHING ELSE - but my PRIMAY question is about the URGENCY of this fiasco.
It was the URGENT classification that propelled it into the national dialog - that DEMANDED it be shipped to congress IMMEDIATELY - that prompted IMPEACH NOW fervor - that dominated the news cycle at the very moment Trump was making REAL news with his UN speech and economic news etc.
It is the URGENT classification that is behind all this
OTHERWISE it would just be a ho-hum = 'another disgruntled DEM operative complaining about something/anything."
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:23 am to AggieHank86
I’m not “ babbling “. You are a cheerleader for Leftist societal chaos. You are currently assisting in your small way with undermining our most important laws and Institutions. Quit trying to have it both ways. Own it.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:25 am to ChineseBandit58
I do not get it either.
This phone call doesn't look like a big deal to me, and I bet that it is romper room level compared to some calls of past Presidents', that we will never be privy to.
This phone call doesn't look like a big deal to me, and I bet that it is romper room level compared to some calls of past Presidents', that we will never be privy to.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:26 am
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:26 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
all I heard from the 'impeach' side do not have a SINGLE FACT which is true.
So are you saying Trump and Zelensky Didn't talk?
ETA: /s for the halfwits inhabiting the board.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:33 am
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:29 am to ChineseBandit58
Who decided to give this individual the moniker of "whistleblower"?? As with the Kavanaugh hearing, the desperate Democrats use every trick in their playbook to create the appearance of guilt in the minds of onlookers by crafting titles that are normally reserved for criminal activity - before discovery even starts.
If you remember the Kavanaugh hearings, CNN would often use the moniker "a person of interest", a term normally associated with murder investigations.
These are dirty, deceptive, underhanded, evil people - these Democrats. Sociopaths - all of them.
If you remember the Kavanaugh hearings, CNN would often use the moniker "a person of interest", a term normally associated with murder investigations.
These are dirty, deceptive, underhanded, evil people - these Democrats. Sociopaths - all of them.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:30 am
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:29 am to TrueTiger
This is all a game right.
To the normal person, this is not urgent or really a whistleblower.
So what do the Dems do?
They didn't exactly manufacture a fake whistleblower. They changed the rules so suddenly a big nothing according to the rule change is an urgent whistleblower.
It's like they do to show there is an increased rate out students passing standardized tests. They just make the tests easier.
To the normal person, this is not urgent or really a whistleblower.
So what do the Dems do?
They didn't exactly manufacture a fake whistleblower. They changed the rules so suddenly a big nothing according to the rule change is an urgent whistleblower.
It's like they do to show there is an increased rate out students passing standardized tests. They just make the tests easier.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:30 am to ShoeBang
quote:
So are you saying Trump and Zelensky Didn't talk?
Taking that as sarcasm as opposed to rational thought - if fails on both interpretations however.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:31 am to ShoeBang
Oh gee. A Sky Screamer rushing in to parse words and derail the relevant conversation. That’s new and different.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:38 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I do not get it either.
This phone call doesn't look like a big deal to me, and I bet that it is romper room level compared to some calls of past Presidents', that we will never be privy to
Complaint alleges that Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a [future] meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"
The phrase "depends on" mean that the phone call or meeting was contingent upon Ukraine being willing to "play ball".
Why would you expect anything in the actual transcript? P.s the [future] note is my own.
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:40 am
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:40 am to bmy
quote:
bmy
bmy believes!! He really, really believes!!!
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:41 am to bmy
quote:Maybe you are the WB!
P.s the [future] note is my own.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:42 am to SSpaniel
quote:
bmy believes!! He really, really believes!!!
I believe Trumps personal lawyer. It wasn't foreign policy related. It wasn't illegal although you could say it was improper. And he was soliciting information he felt would be very very helpful to him personally.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:43 am to Jbird
quote:
Maybe you are the WB!
I added a note because shortyrob would inevitably misinterpret the quote, freak out, and start adding names to his hit list
This post was edited on 9/30/19 at 10:45 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News