- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 25,357
- Reaction score
- 11,557
- Location
- Post-Trump America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Is that a yes or no?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
IDK who you are talking about.
Is that a yes or no?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The people breaking the storyIDK who you are talking about.
Um so you're just denying some of the contents have been disclosed such as the ones mentioned in my OP, right? I just wanna get that on record.
I'm certain the contents have not been disclosed.
Are you going on record saying the contents have been disclosed but you just can't produce them here?
The people breaking the story
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The claims by the whistleblower haven't been disclosed. How could they be fact-checked? The word you're grasping for is "speculated".
This is the anti-Trump brigade's favorite activity, SPECULATION.
The only thing is, they've never been right about anything yet...Always judging in the absence of facts.
Really? So again, how does the media know that Trump asked Ukraine 8 times to look into Joe Biden, and how is it that they know how much he offered them to do it? Or are you expecting this information to be wrong when everything is known? Isn't much more likely that it will be even more revealing with other information to back this up, like IDK an audio recording, which is what is claimed to exist. I don't know why you continue to play these games.
If the media was making this up wouldn't they come up with asking Russia 50 Times and offering them billions of dollars? These things are oddly specific to make up...
Still waiting on the details in the complaint.
Have them?
Still waiting on the details in the complaint.
Have them?
Amazing ain't it.
But they keep doing it.
Albert Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Trump refuses to release the details, that's the entire issue.
Why do you think "waiting" is how you get to that? You must not be following this very closely, or not understand?
And shouldn't it go to congress, and not you, first? I would think it should be public only if Congress decides to take action on it because of its seriousness. Otherwise, let it remain secret.
And their hypocrisy continues to astound! Opposition research on Trump very good. Opposition research on Biden an impeachable offense.
You can't make this stuff up.
ETA:
Giuliani said, "that he has obtained sworn statements from "five people in the Ukraine, who said that 'we were brought into the White House, the Obama White House, and we were told, 'Go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort in January of 2016."
Trump urged Ukraine president to investigate Joe Biden'''s son
More Democrat rules for thee but not for me?
When I see the sworn statements above because I suspect that they will have to be released, I would think so.
This video (I literally just watched prior to seeing the OP) answers IMO your "questions:"
The analyst points out several things I agree with, the first being the constant effort by the MSM to overwhelm the public with one negative story after another. Each one following a failed attempt to find "the thing" that will finally undo Trump. That (in his words) the MSM are grasping for some story that allows them to play offense instead of defense. That this happens every time, as with the recent Kavanaugh story, where the MSM asserts wrongdoing only to find it has to defend it's mistaken assertions.
Arguing "worst case scenario" he points out that the Democrats are suggesting, based solely on assumptions of what "the whistleblower" might have reported, that somehow the President is not allowed to suggest to a foreign head of state that they might want to investigate someone for possible wrongdoing. How is that illegal? How is that an "abuse of power?" How is that not something one head of state can say to another? That this is just another "now Trump has gone too far" effort.
Why would I be nervous if a whistle-blower complaint was properly forward to congress after being delayed by POTUS? That makes no sense. Well, it does make me more nervous about POTUS being allowed to stay in the WH I guess?Personally, I think he will let it be released despite being protected by executive privilege .
You should be very nervous considering the current chatter is that there was no quid-pro-quo.
In every criminal case that is investigated, investigators chatter about the case without having seen the crime, and they determine to the best of their abilities after collecting all the data they reasonable can, what occurred.But chatter by those who haven't seen it is meaningless.
Why would I be nervous if a whistle-blower complaint was properly forward to congress after being delayed by POTUS? That makes no sense. Well, it does make me more nervous about POTUS being allowed to stay in the WH I guess?
In every criminal case that is investigated, investigators chatter about the case without having seen the crime, and they determine to the best of their abilities after collecting all the data they reasonable can, what occurred.
You don't appear to make a reasonable argument.
Why would I be nervous if a whistle-blower complaint was properly forward to congress after being delayed by POTUS? That makes no sense. Well, it does make me more nervous about POTUS being allowed to stay in the WH I guess?
In every criminal case that is investigated, investigators chatter about the case without having seen the crime, and they determine to the best of their abilities after collecting all the data they reasonable can, what occurred.
You don't appear to make a reasonable argument.
The analyst points out several things I agree with, the first being the constant effort by the MSM to overwhelm the public with one negative story after another. Each one following a failed attempt to find "the thing" that will finally undo Trump. That (in his words) the MSM are grasping for some story that allows them to play offense instead of defense. That this happens every time, as with the recent Kavanaugh story, where the MSM asserts wrongdoing only to find it has to defend it's mistaken assertions.
Arguing "worst case scenario" he points out that the Democrats are suggesting, based solely on assumptions of what "the whistleblower" might have reported, that somehow the President is not allowed to suggest to a foreign head of state that they might want to investigate someone for possible wrongdoing. How is that illegal? How is that an "abuse of power?" How is that not something one head of state can say to another? That this is just another "now Trump has gone too far" effort.
Personally, I think he will let it be released despite being protected by executive privilege .
So I understand the reason for not doing it.
You should be very nervous considering the current chatter is that there was no quid-pro-quo.
But chatter by those who haven't seen it is meaningless.
Well, for one thing, we saw what happens when some in Congress take action. They fail miserably because of impure motivation. I'm surprised you would keep wanting to see that.
He doesn't seem to grasp that concept that some people have seen the details of the report, but that the media only has partial information. So that's not surprising.
Because the whistleblower law didn't apply in this instance it wasn't forwarded to Congress.
But even if you deny the threat, using his office for political benefit from a foreign power is also corrupt as hell. Is that the precedent you want for all our Presidents? To allow them to leverage the countries blood and treasure for their own benefit? A President does not own our Country, they are simply stewards who have pledged on a bible to serve the people.
Because the whistleblower law didn't apply in this instance it wasn't forwarded to Congress.
Here. About the Law ...
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998,[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving intelligence activities."
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia
Actually quid pro quo does not need to be verbally articulated, when a President of the U.S. tells you to do something multiple times, the power of his office makes it a threat all by itself. You know this as well as Trump does but choose to ignore it because...Trump.
about serious problems involving intelligence activities."