- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: It’s becoming clear there is no whistleblower
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:35 am to CamdenTiger
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:35 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
This is very likely, could be incompetence, but this is very likely from what’s been released
So you think it's "very likely" that this whole thing is a result of Trump's appointee being incompetent or biased? Interesting. Not saying you're right or wrong.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 9:37 am
0
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:41 am to Srobi14
quote:
The whistle blower is irrelevent. He pointed to transcripts and people with first hand knowledge. The damnation or vindication will come from those folks and documents, not the whistleblower.
This is right. It's a question of whether witnesses will corroborate/fill out details at this point.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:45 am to cahoots
Ok. Is it 10th hand?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:58 am to TigerDoc
This is essentially saying that we can launch investigations into any one for any reason without probable cause. Sorry, but anonymous hearsay isn’t probable cause.
frick the 4th amendment because #OMB.
frick the 4th amendment because #OMB.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 9:59 am to TigerDoc
quote:So much easier to do when you tell them not to lawyer up.
This is right. It's a question of whether witnesses will corroborate/fill out details at this point.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:21 am to Vacherie Saint
When you have multiple whitehouse officials listing to a phone call with a foreign leader in the situation room and writing down that phone call verbatim. This is not hearsay. Again it is probably just unethical to ask for political favors when in a conversation about foreign aid on behalf of the US with a foreign leader. However if it can be proven that he was actually withholding these arms for this reason, he is getting a boot up his arse. It doesn't matter if you like it or not.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:38 am to TigerDoc
quote:That should have been done already. The statute is not designed to forward a bunch of false second-hand gossip garbage to Congress.
It's a question of whether witnesses will corroborate/fill out details at this point.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:45 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
This is essentially saying that we can launch investigations into any one for any reason without probable cause. Sorry, but anonymous hearsay isn’t probable cause.
frick the 4th amendment because #OMB.
The whistleblower protection act has been protecting whistleblowers since OMB was bankrupting casinos. It's been upheld by the courts and it exists to make our government more accountable. It's a good law and seems to have caught some dirty business here.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
WB CLAIMS:
The President pressured Mr. Zelensky to initiate or continue an investigation - FALSE.
Zelensky:
"We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States..."
Trump responds:
"I would like you to do us a favor, though [he asks for two things]... would like you to find out about this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... The other thing... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me."
President abused his office for personal gain - FALSE.
Remains to be seen. Rudy G said it was to benefit Trump, it was not foreign policy, and Trump supported it.
Aside from dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, nothing else was discussed - FALSE.
Whistleblower complaint does not say this. It specifically references both Crowdstrike and the Biden investigation.
Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call - FALSE.
Who cares?
White House officials broke protocol to uniquely "lock down" all records of this phone call - FALSE.
Link?
This act is an abuse of this electronic system because the call did
not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective - FALSE.
Whistleblower is just reporting what a colleague told him.. I am unsure what your point is.
See the text in italics
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:48 am to Srobi14
quote:It is absolutely hearsay when not a single one of those multiple whitehouse officials is named or sourced in the report.
When you have multiple whitehouse officials listing to a phone call with a foreign leader in the situation room and writing down that phone call verbatim. This is not hearsay.
quote:That DID NOT HAPPEN. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It didn't happen. We have the transcript. Read it.
Again it is probably just unethical to ask for political favors when in a conversation about foreign aid on behalf of the US with a foreign leader.
quote:That has been addressed by Sen Portwood. Trump's reasons for withholding were crystal clear. His decision to reinstate aid was based on Portwood convincing him of the merits. That all occurred prior to the Ukraine conversation.
However if it can be proven that he was actually withholding these arms for this reason
The Ukrainians did not even know withholding aid was on the table. Pretty hard to threaten someone successfully when you don't even make the threat known to them.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:49 am to Srobi14
Lol, that’s not how any of that went down.
The complaint’s details of the call were absolutely wrong, and they got some of the people wrong. No one has been able to confirm anything in the complaint, and all parties directly involved, including the Ukraine, refute it.
Again, at the end of the day, you are attempting to put a duly elected POTUS on trial and remove him from office based only on anonymous hearsay. There isn’t a court in America that would allow that to happen, and frankly, none of you would accept this if it were happening to a dem president, so cut the bullshite.
The complaint’s details of the call were absolutely wrong, and they got some of the people wrong. No one has been able to confirm anything in the complaint, and all parties directly involved, including the Ukraine, refute it.
Again, at the end of the day, you are attempting to put a duly elected POTUS on trial and remove him from office based only on anonymous hearsay. There isn’t a court in America that would allow that to happen, and frankly, none of you would accept this if it were happening to a dem president, so cut the bullshite.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 10:55 am to TigerDoc
quote:
It's a good law and seems to have caught some dirty business here.
Lol, it’s caught nothing. The law may be good, but it’s application here is a complete bastardization of it. That’s why the DOJ and DNI have already said that it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:00 am to bmy
quote:Aren't you though. Every one of those WB assertions was false. Either the sources lied, or were lied to, or the WB lied about them. Those errors could have and should have been verified by FIRST-hand information, and corrected. Regardless, the whole purpose for NOT transmitting complaints based on second-hand or third-hand unverified gossip is to provide the Legislative Branch accurate information.
See the text in italics
Whistleblower is just reporting what a colleague told him.. I am unsure what your point is.
quote:You claimed that is wrong. It isn't.
In fact the phone conversation transcript not only does not validate WB concerns, it invalidates them. Yet those invalidated concerns were nonetheless forwarded to Congress and deemed "credible".
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:01 am to Vacherie Saint
DOJ said that it wasn't going to open a criminal investigation. The criminal referral was just something the DNI did based on the nature of particular complaint. DOJ hasn't said it shouldn't go to Congress. It was the acting DNI who did that while the IG thought that it should.
But it is moot now, because in order to limit political damage, the White House release part of the record of the call, somehow thinking they could spin the narrative like they did with the Barr memos for the Mueller report.
But they ended up corroborating the substance of the report (and more) and the president has confirmed he withheld the payments. At this point, Congress is going to subpoena staff, the white house will refuse to honor subpoenas or claim executive privilege and it'll proceed on in such fashion. Pompeo's attempting to keep State department people out of it, while it turns out he was on the call and misled about it.
Again, a mess.
But it is moot now, because in order to limit political damage, the White House release part of the record of the call, somehow thinking they could spin the narrative like they did with the Barr memos for the Mueller report.
But they ended up corroborating the substance of the report (and more) and the president has confirmed he withheld the payments. At this point, Congress is going to subpoena staff, the white house will refuse to honor subpoenas or claim executive privilege and it'll proceed on in such fashion. Pompeo's attempting to keep State department people out of it, while it turns out he was on the call and misled about it.
Again, a mess.
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 11:03 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That DID NOT HAPPEN. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It didn't happen. We have the transcript. Read it.
Is it a full transcript?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:05 am to cahoots
quote:100%!
Is it a full transcript?
Not even a matter for sane debate.
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:06 am to TigerDoc
Remember when you disappeared for three months after the Mueller report fizzled?
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:07 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
100%!
Not even a matter for sane debate.
The thing I read a few days ago now says "not a verbatim transcript of discussion"
Is there another version out?
This post was edited on 10/2/19 at 11:08 am
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:10 am to TigerDoc
quote:Negative.
But they ended up corroborating the substance of the report (and more) and the president has confirmed he withheld the payments.
The payments were neither being withheld at the point of the 25July call, nor was the Ukraine even aware the possibility had been considered.
quote:What lunacy.
he White House release part of the record of the call
Posted on 10/2/19 at 11:13 am to cahoots
quote:It is as verbatim as a courtroom transcription. Except in this case, there are multiple transcriptionists who then compare notes to ensure record accuracy.
The thing I read a few days ago now says "not a verbatim transcript of discussion"
Is there another version out?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News