Page 13 of 14

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:47 pm
by Intrinsic

who provided very weak questionable evidence, of what some legal experts aren't even sure is a crime,

misinformation, fake news, Bob is this yer hobby echoing Fox & Friends? Care to give what you saw as weak evidence in the whistleblower report?


Not weak, not disputed, When repubs were not using their time to question the wittiness to rant or give speeches (the majority of the time) not once were they able to refute the evidence presented.
.
"a crime" be real, its about impeachable offenses. Maybe yer "experts: from Fox news ought to be schooled.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:06 pm
by Intrinsic
Yo, sound the bell, school's in, sucka ~ MC Hammer

Impeachment hearing just gave us a Constitution lesson. Will the GOP bother to learn it?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... accused-of

Since the hearings began in earnest three weeks ago, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have argued over and over that President Trump’s behavior in asking Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden falls short of justifying the extreme sanction of impeachment.
On Wednesday, three law professors who testified before the House Judiciary Committee effectively dismantled that defense, arguing persuasively that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment as a curb on exactly that sort of abuse of power.

Although the professors’ testimony on constitutional law and history was less dramatic than the factual accounts provided by a series of witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee, it was nevertheless important. Despite the fact that three presidents (including Trump) have been subjected to impeachment investigations in the last 45 years, the public understandably remains confused about the purpose of impeachment and the offenses for which a president can reasonably be put on trial by the Senate. That confusion makes it easier for Trump’s defenders to argue that the Democrats who launched this investigation are motivated purely by politics.

Article II of the Constitution says that the president and other officials can be impeached and removed from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Three of Tuesday’s witnesses — the ones who had been called by the Democrats — made a powerful case that Trump had committed offenses that would be deemed impeachable by the founders who wrote that constitutional restraint.


Turley also agreed with other scholars that “it is possible to impeach a president for noncriminal acts.” He noted, however, that Presidents Nixon and Clinton were accused in articles of impeachment of committing crimes and suggested that impeaching a president solely on grounds of misconduct that wasn’t criminal would be a mistake.

We disagree. A president can commit an egregious abuse of power without violating a criminal statute. And the inclusion of “bribery” among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” justifying impeachment isn’t a reference to bribery as defined in federal criminal law. As Karlan noted, “bribery” in the impeachment clause refers to any situation in which an official “solicited, received or offered a person a favor or benefit to influence official action — that is, putting his private welfare above the national interest.” That is precisely what Trump is accused of doing in withholding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in order to extract a political “favor” for himself from the Ukrainian president.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:45 pm
by Intrinsic
FWIW It was Bill Taylor, the top diplomat in Ukraine that I remembered quote about quitting.

September 8, text message from Taylor to Sondland saying "nightmare is they (the Ukrainians) give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)."

The following day, September 9, Taylor wrote to both Volker and Sondland. "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

He did not learn details of the president's July 25 phone call with Zelensky until September 25, when the White House released a summary of the call. 

"Although this was the first time I had seen the details of President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskyy, in which he mentioned Vice President Biden, I had come to understand well before then that 'investigations' was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens," Taylor wrote.

The longtime U.S. diplomat left Capitol Hill shortly before 8 p.m. Tuesday night, after 9.5 hours of testimony.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:29 pm
by Butcher Bob
:facepalm: ......missed the point completely.....just like the FBI. :tup:

Your failure to acknowledge the magnitude of the difference in severity between the revelations brought to light by these whistleblowers speaks volumes aboot your intent. Is like the FBI saying the IG's report vindicates them...even after the IG testifies that it does not...so offensive a claim that the FISA court has come out to publically rebuke them.

Instead your retort is an attempt to smear me (laughable), an opinion from an editorial board whose own mission statement is to sway public opinion if they feel the facts presented are not enough to do so, and a presumption given weeks before the individual was presented the evidence for his basis.

You and the dem leadership have your faces so far into the national security slop trough, that you fail to notice you are at the slaughter house.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:56 pm
by Intrinsic
So did Sensenbrenner today,
he needs to be schooled.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:31 pm
by Intrinsic
No I wasn't ignoring your point I was just critiquing the evidence you provided for your premise. And I got tired of repeating myself using my own words. so I just resorted cut and paste, and it was amusing

And appropriate giving the debate going on on the Congress floor. Dare I say prescience...

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:59 pm
by Butcher Bob
Only one rep abstained from voting, with the rest voting 'no'.
While two dems abstained, one voted 'present', and two defected on article I and three defected on article II.

So, it is a partisan effort, with bi-partisan opposition....so far.

The minority whip and the minority speaker for the vote, both mentioned the disregard of the rule concerning minority witness hearings.

The one very strong point I saw, coming from reps several times, was the forwarning to dems, that they may regret the low evidenciary standard being set, when it gets used against them in the future.

I think history will reflect very poorly on the dems for this. The senate will not remove Trump, and it is very likely they will return a majority acquittal. If the dems are unable to acquire a single rep vote in the senate, history will view this as a partisan manuver...dems will only be remembered for their obstruction of the president.

Tulsi, the lone 'present' vote, gave the best summation I've seen...

“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

This 'whistleblower' is nothing of the sort...it is merely a vindictive leak and media psy-op.

What happens to real whistleblowers?...exile, imprisonment, torture...

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:01 am
by rSin
Butcher Bob wrote:Only one rep abstained from voting, with the rest voting 'no'.
While two dems abstained, one voted 'present', and two defected on article I and three defected on article II.

So, it is a partisan effort, with bi-partisan opposition....so far.

The minority whip and the minority speaker for the vote, both mentioned the disregard of the rule concerning minority witness hearings.

The one very strong point I saw, coming from reps several times, was the forwarning to dems, that they may regret the low evidenciary standard being set, when it gets used against them in the future.

I think history will reflect very poorly on the dems for this. The senate will not remove Trump, and it is very likely they will return a majority acquittal. If the dems are unable to acquire a single rep vote in the senate, history will view this as a partisan manuver...dems will only be remembered for their obstruction of the president.

Tulsi, the lone 'present' vote, gave the best summation I've seen...

“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

This 'whistleblower' is nothing of the sort...it is merely a vindictive leak and media psy-op.

What happens to real whistleblowers?...exile, imprisonment, torture...



so I missed a week
please god tell me theres a second and hopefully third paragraph to tulsi's statement your leaving out

which correctly expresses frames the slander

your opinions revolve around here...

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:40 pm
by Intrinsic
Butcher Bob wrote:who provided very weak questionable evidence, of what some legal experts aren't even sure is a crime,

Intrinsic wrote: Care to give what you saw as very weak evidence in the whistleblower report?



Tumbleweeds

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:44 pm
by Butcher Bob
I saw Tulsi do appearances on both Jimmy Dore and The Hill that night to explain her position.





Now Pelosi is holding on to the charges...meddling with the election process.

If she holds on to them until primaries start, she will affectively knock Sanders and Warren out of the race by forcing them to sit in a trial rather than campaigning at a crucial point...and it will also destroy Biden's chance by having his name drug through the mud in proceedings during that same period. Couldn't wait on a court ruling on whether the executive branch can ignore a congressional impeachment hearing subpoena...but now we do have time to wait before continuing the process?

Do you know what senate dems were doing the day of the vote?....giving Trump 10 more federal court judges.
And the day after the vote, the house dems give Trump the USMCA.
AND they just gave the health industry a $373 Billion tax break...the bulk of which went to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

These fukkers don't want Trump out...he is doing far more for their donors than they ever could.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:51 pm
by Butcher Bob
For shits & giggles I'll play along.

Intrinsic wrote:Care to give what you saw as weak evidence in the whistleblower report?

Quid pro quo was never directly stated. The best the dems can do is to say it's implied...which is opinion, not evidence. And while they play word salad to arrive at their conclusion, they conveniently ignore three words..."...if that's possible." Now I've been privy to many illegal deals in my lifetime, and when one party has coercive power over the other, I have never, ever heard that phrase used.

And as I understand things, some members of the intelligence community were indeed worried what affect corruption would have on our government...specifically they were concerned aboot a corrupt foreign company appointing the son of our VP to their board, as a method of influencing our government's decisions regarding them. With that consideration in mind it would seem quite reasonable for our president to ask their president to look into it.

If the dems are truely concerned that Trump is a russian asset...
...why did they increase his spying powers?
...why did they give him a $131 Billion increase to an already bloated military budget?
...why did they give him everything he wanted in the NDAA, without a single concession?

Calling it weak evidence might be an understatement.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:12 am
by Intrinsic
Quid pro quo was never directly stated. The best the dems can do is to say it's implied...which is opinion, not evidence. And while they play word salad to arrive at their conclusion, they conveniently ignore three words..."...if that's possible." Now I've been privy to many illegal deals in my lifetime, and when one party has coercive power over the other, I have never, ever heard that phrase used.

What are you babbling about? Dems?? You said the whistle blower report had weak evidence. What you are talking about is the actual phone transcript, the evidence obtained from the impeachment investigations? Not what is in the WB report.
I was asking what you saw was weak in the WB report, since you were attacking the whistleblower report, Basing yer premise on.

Butcher Bob wrote
the enormity of actual evidence, of actual crimes, committed by actual people that Manning provided as a whistleblower, and her treatment of being jailed and totured, not once but twice...compared to a CIA spook, who provided very weak questionable evidence, of what some legal experts aren't even sure is a crime, and is being protected by security agences 


Your premise of question the WB legitimacy, rest on the report was weak questionable evidence and no crime committed.

And I asked you to back it up.

Yer not telling me what was in the WB report only what was brought out as evidence from the investigation brought on by The Whistleblower report.

So nothing about the what was actually in the report itself. please revise your statement without the 2 fallacies in it in the middle of it. Or back it up.
The second being, 100% consensus of the Constitutional experts said you didn't need a crime to impeach.
Did you forget that already?

Since you still didn't talk about what info in the actual after asking twice, I'll start to chip away at your credibility argument by mentioning this, the evidence presented about Trump withholding the funds and improperly stonewalling the reason why, which is his duty, causing two of the people responsible for informing Congress of the reason why, where unable to do so does forced to quit or commit a crime.
Congress was unaware that their power of appropriation was being ursuped until the WB report came out.
seemed pretty reliable info to me cuz it was true.

Unless you don't think it's a good thing Congress became aware that their power appropriation was taken over by the President without him telling them and would have got away with it. Do you?

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:31 am
by Butcher Bob
Intrinsic wrote:I was asking what you saw was weak in the WB report, since you were attacking the whistleblower report, Basing yer premise on.

Butcher Bob wrote
the enormity of actual evidence, of actual crimes, committed by actual people that Manning provided as a whistleblower, and her treatment of being jailed and totured, not once but twice...compared to a CIA spook, who provided very weak questionable evidence, of what some legal experts aren't even sure is a crime, and is being protected by security agences


Your premise of question the WB legitimacy, rest on the report was weak questionable evidence and no crime committed.

And I asked you to back it up.

Really?...this is what you want to go with?

:roflmao:

Have you even read the fukking thing?...

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/76407137 ... raine-call

You want to compare that 7 pages of absolute shit, to the hundreds of thousands of documents Manning provided?

:roflmao:

Get rekt!

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:19 pm
by Intrinsic
I'm not going with your strawman argument you win with Manning is better than this threads whistleblower. strawman fallacy.

You claimed
Butcher Bob wrote:who provided very weak questionable evidence, of what some legal experts aren't even sure is a crime.

I challenge that claim.
Intrinsic wrote: Care to give what you saw as very weak evidence in the whistleblower report?


The third time.

You got nothing, you can't or won't give me the questionable evidence you claim is in the Whistleblower report.

Since you won't defend your claim, and I cited accurate information in the report about illegal separation of powers and you were wrong about impeachment needed to have a crime.
And nothing but deflection from you.
You have been on pwnd.
Or cite the weak evidence in the WB report you claim you saw.

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:05 pm
by Butcher Bob
You say you are for truth and justice...

...yet you seem to focus your attention on a relatively insignificant whistleblower...

...so much so, that you were completely unaware that Manning was back in prison.

You don't see the humorousness aboot that?...and sadness at the same time? :confused:



I'm glad you made me do the research to go read that complaint. I don't think I've ever read anything written in so much CYA-nese. I am so going to shred my brother in our political discussions over the holidays. :grin:

Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:02 pm
by Intrinsic
Exactly my point you never read the report ya were just talking through your hat regurgitating Republican fallacy points without knowing anything. Have fun learning now what's in the report I look forward to it.

By the way truth and knowledge or not the same thing. I was ignorant, now I'm not and now I know the truth thanks. I'm For Truth not omnipotent. Capiche