• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

W_Heisenberg said:
1. Schiff doesn't have any obligation to act on the bad faith arguments being made by the Republicans.

2. The main problem isn't that Trump may have committed a crime such as bribery or extortion. The main problem is that Trump abused his office, a far worse accusation than just bribery or extortion. It's the abuse of office the represents the greatest threat to our country.

3. Hearing from the whistleblower would not substantially bolster the claims being made against Trump. Also, weeks ago Trump supporters were arguing the whistleblower was just offering second-hand information, and hearsay, and now suddenly they want him to testify? That doesn't make any sense. Wow. Another goal-post moving argument by Trump supporters. I'm in total shock.

4. That the whistleblower worked in the government long enough to have some association with previous administrations isn't important. That whistleblower may be a Democrat himself isn't important. That the whistleblower may be biased isn't important. The reason why it isn't important is because we have approximately a dozen witnesses and a phone transcript which corroborates everything the whistleblower said. If the whistleblower was biased, it obviously didn't impact what he wrote in the complain, because everything has confirmed what was in the complaint.

5. There are have been accusations that the whistleblower coordinated with Schiff's staff. This is false. There is no evidence for this. What we know is the whistleblower first went to CIA's general counsel, and nothing was done. The whistleblower didn't know what to do so he went to the Intelligence Committee staff and asked for advice. The staff told him to do things properly through the whistleblower process outlined by the law. That's what the whistleblower did. There is no evidence of any trickery involved here. And, again, it's important to note that nearly everything outlined in the complaint has proven to be true on the basis of testimony given under oath and the phone call transcript.

6. There is nothing wrong with Schiff lending financial support to his colleagues. Being the most prominent House investigator, Schiff has money pouring into his campaign coffers. And this argument is a little disingenuous on the author's part. I wonder if the author knows that as this impeachment inquiry unfolds Trump is financially supporting his major Republican allies, and not financially supporting his Republican critics.
Click to expand...
In other words hearing from the WB might destroy Schiff's carefully constructed house of cards. I will give your credit for your carefully constructed, but vapid list of "nuh-uhs". Funny thing is that having the WB testify openly would probably destroy most, if not all of your "arguments".

Answer one question: What are you afraid of by having him testify openly?
 
ettoremathedi said:
I'm all for any news source that provides good argument and facts. So I started reading it to understand a different point of view.

However, THIS is not journalism - "The embarrassingly laughable ego-maniac that started this #fauxpeachment farce to begin with."

I'll try to finish it, but it already rubs me the wrong way. Is this a professional or a raging blogger?
Click to expand...
IF this article bothers you, you must have to avoid pretty much every MSM outlet in the country. :cool:
 
Bullseye said:
IF this article bothers you, you must have to avoid pretty much every MSM outlet in the country. :cool:
Click to expand...

That's a deflection and whataboutism. COme on, you're better than that. Let's have a civil conversation based on facts.

I finished the entire article, and well..considering it gets wrong two of the most important things as the crux of the argument, it's not really a serious thing. It's an op-ed from someone who has a great difficulty making coherent arguments and (I believe) lied about a bunch of things we all know not to be true. Despite that, I think the discussion about the whistleblower is very interesting. Maybe it should testify publicly, I don't know. What do you think, and why?
 
Bullseye said:
In other words hearing from the WB might destroy Schiff's carefully constructed house of cards. I will give your credit for your carefully constructed, but vapid list of "nuh-uhs". Funny thing is that having the WB testify openly would probably destroy most, if not all of your "arguments".

Answer one question: What are you afraid of by having him testify openly?
Click to expand...

What do you think it will bring? They have other witnesses collaborating his claims. How might he destroy this house of cards as you put it.
There is no doubt on earth Trump did not ask this "favor" the only thing up for challenge is was it bad enough to remove him form office. Arguing anything else makes no sense at this time.
 
I just love how great trumpian minds think that nailing the guy that pulled the fire alarm to save the building is more important than nailing the guy that started the friggin' fire in the first place.

The testimony has gone FAR beyond the "second and third hand" information that the whistleblower outlined in his complaint to the first hand DIRECT knowledge of key players within the administration. The whistleblower's testimony is in the report and at this point even if the whistleblower LIED about something said or done, the people he lied about have given their own testimony. But it seems that those people have done nothing except CORROBORATE the complaint.

Meanwhile the administration players who could certainly "clear things up" with their own testimony have been ordered NOT TO TESTIFY by the subject of the investigation with the ludicrous and specious claim of "absolute executive immunity".


The rats are beginning to make travel plans, it seems.
 
So, what this thread boils down to seem to be those on the right want a full and complete investigation, including a detailed examination of what the person that started the whole thing - the whistleblower. BTW I'd like to get the ICIG on the stand to explain how the requirement for PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE from the WB got changed just in time for this scenario.

The opposite side, aka Trumpopaths seem to want to avoid anything that will destroy their chance to get the thing they desire more than any other thing in this world: Trump's down fall. Truth, fairness, due process, even Constitutionality, must be thrown in the dump, if necessary to achieve that goal. It's a sickness.
 
Bullseye said:
So, what this thread boils down to seem to be those on the right want a full and complete investigation, including a detailed examination of what the person that started the whole thing - the whistleblower. BTW I'd like to get the ICIG on the stand to explain how the requirement for PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE from the WB got changed just in time for this scenario.

The opposite side, aka Trumpopaths seem to want to avoid anything that will destroy their chance to get the thing they desire more than any other thing in this world: Trump's down fall. Truth, fairness, due process, even Constitutionality, must be thrown in the dump, if necessary to achieve that goal. It's a sickness.
Click to expand...

You have a myopic view of what the right wants. Maybe this is what you personally want, but I would wager the right as a whole is not interested in a complete investigation.
also your premise of the WB needing personal knowledge had been debunked from the start.
 
Bullseye said:
So, your entire argument was summarized in my first post "Ewwwww! Townhall". Thanks for the totally mindlessness, I enjoyed a good laugh out of your miffed "yeah, but . . ."
Click to expand...

He's an idiot or a liar (or both), which he demonstrated in the article you posted, so why would anyone care what that hack said about anything?
 
bubbabgone said:
Well done. But my experience tells me it won't be well received.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It is counter to the political agenda driven narrative from Democrats and their DNC propaganda arm, i.e. the lamestream lying media.
 
Bullseye said:
So, what this thread boils down to seem to be those on the right want a full and complete investigation, including a detailed examination of what the person that started the whole thing - the whistleblower. BTW I'd like to get the ICIG on the stand to explain how the requirement for PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE from the WB got changed just in time for this scenario.

The opposite side, aka Trumpopaths seem to want to avoid anything that will destroy their chance to get the thing they desire more than any other thing in this world: Trump's down fall. Truth, fairness, due process, even Constitutionality, must be thrown in the dump, if necessary to achieve that goal. It's a sickness.
Click to expand...

Here's the explainer for your question about PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. It's only been out there since Sept 30, so maybe you missed it.:roll:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf
 
Bullseye said:
So, your entire argument was summarized in my first post "Ewwwww! Townhall". Thanks for the totally mindlessness, I enjoyed a good laugh out of your miffed "yeah, but . . ."
Click to expand...

You linked to the opinion of a guy who either didn't read the memo, or chooses to flat out lie about Biden's name not being mentioned. Care to explain why you think people shouldn't criticize it?
 
Bullseye said:
In other words hearing from the WB might destroy Schiff's carefully constructed house of cards.
Click to expand...

If everyone has corroborated what the whistleblower said then what negative impact do you think will occur if the whistleblower is made to testify?

If you want the whistleblower to testify, then based on the same principle of transparency, you must also insist that WH officials and Trump himself testify.

You do not make this argument. No Trump supporter makes this argument.

This is how we know the argument is disingenuous. It's not about transparency, it's about stacking the deck in Trump's favor as much as possible.

I will give your credit for your carefully constructed, but vapid list of "nuh-uhs".
Click to expand...

Thanks. I like to do my own thinking and my own writing. I don't like to lazily link to random op-eds.

Funny thing is that having the WB testify openly would probably destroy most, if not all of your "arguments".
Click to expand...

Well, why do you think this is true? Everyone else -- even Trump himself by virtue of releasing the call transcript -- has corroborated the WB's claims.

Answer one question: What are you afraid of by having him testify openly?
Click to expand...

I'm not. And the Senate will likely call him during the trial.

Why aren't you asking Trump to testify? What are you afraid of?

Why aren't you asking for WH officials to testify? What are you afraid of?

Why aren't you asking for the WH to submit the documents the House requested?

Do you believe Trump did not intend to hurt Biden when he called for Ukraine to investigate him?
 
Bullseye said:
In other words hearing from the WB might destroy
Click to expand...
Bull crap talking point? What can the WB possibly say to change what Trump said in the call and what he did with the aid funds? Why is it that no Trump defender can answer this question?
 
JasperL said:
I get a lot of that - people unable to defend their statements telling me how obvious it is that I'm wrong. It's boring because it's too predictable. Nuh UHHH!!! YOU'RE WRONG!! Etc.. :yawn:
Click to expand...
You are predictable--and predictably wrong. It is boring, but I can't change you. You need to do that yourself.
 
PoS said:
Adam Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary' - CNNPolitics


Strange. Why would the Dems hide the accuser from cross examination? If the case is so airtight, why not go public with all of it?
Click to expand...

Well is wasn't when this started, it only became redundant after we found out the Whistleblower went to the Schiff staff and talked it over before reporting it and the WB may well be a Biden confident, staffer or more. Democrats, and particualrly Schiff are just crooks who will abuse power to gain the White House and then claim someone else did it.
 
Bullseye said:
So, what this thread boils down to seem to be those on the right want a full and complete investigation, including a detailed examination of what the person that started the whole thing - the whistleblower. BTW I'd like to get the ICIG on the stand to explain how the requirement for PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE from the WB got changed just in time for this scenario.

The opposite side, aka Trumpopaths seem to want to avoid anything that will destroy their chance to get the thing they desire more than any other thing in this world: Trump's down fall. Truth, fairness, due process, even Constitutionality, must be thrown in the dump, if necessary to achieve that goal. It's a sickness.
Click to expand...

Again, the whistleblower could be Hillary Clinton, how would that change anything considering the multiple testimonies corroborating the claims? We have the transcript. We have the DOJ confirming it. Trump himself said it happened, and that it was fine (his opinion, that's the point, interpretation of what happened, but everyone agrees on the facts because we have the conversation).

Hillary could be the whistleblower and say she hates trump and wants to destroy the right...wouldn't make the claims any less true. It's not 'falsely' accusing someone, we have the evidence, right wingers agree, they just disagree on what it means. But the facts are facts.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
So, what this thread boils down to seem to be those on the right want a full and complete investigation, including a detailed examination of what the person that started the whole thing - the whistleblower. BTW I'd like to get the ICIG on the stand to explain how the requirement for PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE from the WB got changed just in time for this scenario.

The opposite side, aka Trumpopaths seem to want to avoid anything that will destroy their chance to get the thing they desire more than any other thing in this world: Trump's down fall. Truth, fairness, due process, even Constitutionality, must be thrown in the dump, if necessary to achieve that goal. It's a sickness.
Click to expand...

If the right actually wanted an open and honest investigation perhaps they can explain why the SUBJECT of the impeachment investigation has ordered his staff to NOT TESTIFY despite the fact that they are some of the principle people who know exactly what truth is in the alleged extortion of a foreign power for the SUBJECT's personal political gain. Nah, that ain't obstructing justice in plain sight now is it?

But I do agree that trumpopaths are out to get the lying scheming shiftless corrupt lecherous lazy lowlife.
 
SCrider said:
You have a myopic view of what the right wants. Maybe this is what you personally want, but I would wager the right as a whole is not interested in a complete investigation.
Click to expand...
With all due respect I'd submit you don't no **** about what the right wants.
SCrider said:
also your premise of the WB needing personal knowledge had been debunked from the start.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, the requirement for personal knowledge was changed JUST PRIOR to this whole scenario.
 
Bullseye said:
With all due respect I'd submit you don't no **** about what the right wants.

Actually, no, the requirement for personal knowledge was changed JUST PRIOR to this whole scenario.
Click to expand...

What the right wants is pretty clear by paying attention to the news.
No the form changed not the law.
 
JasperL said:
He's an idiot or a liar (or both), which he demonstrated in the article you posted, so why would anyone care what that hack said about anything?
Click to expand...

Because I can tell from the reactions he's evoking from you guys that he's dead on the money. If a unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something, it's most certainly true.
 
humbolt said:
QUOTE=Cordelier;1070875208]

I already have.

You claim you've read all the testimony, so you're asking me to tell you what's wrong with it? Are you absolutely certain you've read it, or are you just referring to it when a question about it pops up? I certainly haven't read it all, but I've read enough presumption, conjecture, and opinion, some using those very words, to discount it as non-factual blather.

So, if you guys are serious, write up articles of impeachment and introduce a resolution. Get Pelosi on the phone, tell her to tighten up those dentures, and get this done. The left has been playing this game with the public for nearly three years now while significant issues before congress languish. Honestly, it looks exactly like the only thing you guys are gonna do is talk about it because you can't actually do anything.
Click to expand...

I think you need to make up your mind, Humbolt.... are you for or against due process here?

Witnesses have come before the Committee and made depositions. That's all perfectly reasonable. Happens all the time in investigations. Now we're moving toward the public hearings... and all of a sudden you want to skip them and just rush to judgment??!

What are you afraid of?
 
Bullseye said:
If a unhinged mob of looney left true believers go to extremes to deny or discredit something, it's most certainly true.
Click to expand...

False dilemma - Wikipedia

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. For example, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist" (she may be neither capitalist nor communist). "Roger opposed an atheist argument against Christianity, so he must be a Christian" (When it's assumed the opposition by itself means he's a Christian). Roger might be an atheist who disagrees with the logic of some particular argument against Christianity. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual tendency, whatever the cause, to view the world with limited sets of options.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Oh geesh. More Qanon and conservative tree house conspiracy crap. You will believe anything wont you?

Mifsud is from Malta, so he is a Westerner, so he's going to have some links to Western intelligence agencies. The problem with Mifsud is all the various connections he has with the Russian government.



Halper is a Western intelligence asset, who worked directly for the U.S. government. He was hired specifically to help learn more about what the Russians were doing, and his involvement came AFTER the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane.



Justifiably so. Russian kept trying to infiltrate and manipulate the Trump campaign. They were also engaged in a broader intelligence operation against the U.S. What was the FBI/CIA supposed to do? Just let them spy and do whatever they want?
Click to expand...

Well, that's the question isn't it? Justifiably so or not? Sufficient predicate to open a counter intel spying operation against a political opposition presidential campaign or not. This is what Barr testified to congress and what Durham is investigating. Given that Durham's investigation has been elevated into a criminal investigation certainly brings legitimate question and doubt whether there was sufficient predicate to open the counter intel spying operation.

Trump and his campaign should have done the wise thing and not entertained any of their offers. This is on them, not the FBI.
Click to expand...

If the Trump campaign would have been found to be 'colluding with the Russians', the 2 1/2+ year, $40M Mueller investigation backed by unlimited FBI investigative resources would have surely found it. They did not, as their report documents.

On what planet do you live that you think Russia would have been able to acquire these e-mails without hacking Clinton? Seriously have some common sense. These idiotic Qanon conspiracy theories have scrambled your brain.
Click to expand...

The FBI has never forensically examined the hacked DNC servers. Quite likely they would have been able to determine from where the security breech would have come, and who would have perpetrated it. But no. The DNC engaged CrowdStrike for this forensic examination
"CrowdStrike is connected to the Obama administration and the DNC. After examining the servers for a mere day, CrowdStrike concluded two Russian groups were responsible for the cyberattack. Meanwhile, neither FBI nor any other law enforcement agency has looked at their servers—and still hasn’t to this day."
Click to expand...

Now why is that CrowdStrike was hired to perform this forensic examination and not the FBI? Coming to their conclusion after only a single day, how would you trust a conclusion arrived at so readily after such a sort time, without any validation, no second opinion? Seems almost pre-ordained that it was the Russians. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Without a second opinion you are putting your faith and trust in CrowdStrike, aren't you? What do you know of them? And wouldn't you trust the FBI's conclusion more?

Oh, and had you read the Mueller report, after Trump's announcement, you would know Russia DID try to hack Clinton's computer systems.
Click to expand...

All the more reason she was criminal in her handling of classified materials on that server.

W_Heisenberg said:
Glenn Simpson is an expert on Russia. He was hired by Veselnitskaya for an entirely difference case involving a Russian company, Prevezon, that was being charged by the DOJ. It was in relation to that case that Simpson met with Veselnitskaya. And this wasn't some clandestine meeting. Veselnitskaya and Simpson were meeting as part of a large gathering of people, mostly associated with the law firm, Baker Hostetler. Glenn Simpson testified to this under oath. There is no reason to believe that Simpson and Veselnitskaya were trying to set up Trump or his campaign. But, on the basis of this fact alone, that they were associated with each other, you have constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory that somehow Fusion GPS set up Trump's campaign. This is a ludicrous notion that is not supported by any other piece of evidence. It's merely an assumption on your part. There are no other facts supported this stupid conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

No indication that Glenn Simpson has any sort of expertise in, or experience with, Russia.
Glenn R. Simpson - Wikipedia
Are you sure you aren't mixing up Steele and Simpson? Steele was on UK's MI6 Russia desk.

As to Russia collusion, pretty apparent that Glenn Simpson wrote the script for this back in 2007.

How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington
By Glenn R. Simpson and Mary Jacoby, Updated April 17, 2007 12:01 am ET

Tried the same thing on the McCain presidential campaign as well. Yes, the 'Russian Collusion' political narrative has been tried on previous Republican presidential campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom