• 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!

Lindsey Graham seems to be trying to intimidate whistleblowers!

ocean515 said:
LOL

How is it a conspiracy, when Schiff admitted to it?

'Splain that Rickey.

Try some information sources outside of your boiler room, MSNBC, or DemocratUnderground.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you believe Schiff when he says something, since you say he is a liar.
But when Donald J Trump says something, your position is he didn't actually say it.
It must be like a No'easter in your head trying to keep all of these fallacies from colliding.
 
joko104 said:
It could be hard for the whistleblower to testify if there is no whistleblower at all and gossip-monger Dossier #2 was written by an Obama hangover TDS group.
Click to expand...

Yes, keep inventing scenarios, that's the ticket, and a sure way to guarantee your credibility stays intact.
 
Barnacle said:
Our Miss Lindsay is a total nutcase ... we know (grin). But to your other points:

A CIA agent fearing for his life ... give me a break, pleeeease. :lol:

Schiff had said the leaking WB would be available for questioning, but behind closed doors only. Okay ... until ...

A few days ago the WB lawyers asked whether it is possible to have him testify in writing. Say what? And today ...

On Face-the-Nation Schiff announced that the WB is no longer needed because the president's call is the best evidence.

The invisible WB has disappeared into the night ...

The end.
:lamo
Click to expand...

The Incredible Vanishing Whistleblower

"There's an obvious reason why they have obscured this alleged hero's identity. It was reported that he worked with Joe Biden in the White House on Ukraine issues. A story worth explaining? The whole scheme began to look like a Democratic plot. And suddenly, the incessant pro-impeachment media went dark on their central figure.

His testimony was no longer the piece de Resistance. Pardon the pun.

Susan Ferrechio at the Washington Examiner noted that Republicans planned to ask this whistleblower all kinds of questions about when he met with Schiff's staff and how they coordinated. "But it is appearing more likely Republicans will never have the chance to ask the whistleblower any questions at all about how closely he worked with Schiff's team," she said.

Even some of the liberal "fact-checkers" felt pressed to admit Schiff lied when he claimed on national TV that he and his staff never met with this whistleblower. Clearly, he doesn't want any more questions about how coordinated this impeachment plot is. A GOP source told the Examiner, "At some point, both Schiff and the whistleblower came to the conclusion that his personal testimony stands to do more harm than good to both of them."

The backpedaling has been furious. Schiff appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and said, "given that we already have the call record, we don't need the whistleblower who wasn't on the call to tell us what took place during the call." Both Schiff and CBS' Margaret Brennan agreed the most important priority of this probe is keeping the identity of the whistleblower a secret — without questioning for a moment how that could be considered fair to the president, who's the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Imagine the Republicans had tried to impeach then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 for some phone call he made to a foreign leader, and that they'd said they had an anonymous whistleblower who never heard Clinton's phone call. The press would have mocked all of it as an enormous waste of time and money and a huge distraction from the legislative "business of the people."

Their completely different and partisan reaction to this only underlines how much collusion goes on between the journalists and the Democrats. They're hard to distinguish from one another. They use all the same talking points and catchphrases. They've had a shared goal of impeaching Trump since the day he was inaugurated. There is no balance or fairness in anything the media "reports" on this brazen attempt to overthrow this administration."

Previous acme scheme failed....

Nadlerliesagain.JPG

On to the next!..

democratplan.JPG
 
akyron said:
The Incredible Vanishing Whistleblower

"There's an obvious reason why they have obscured this alleged hero's identity. It was reported that he worked with Joe Biden in the White House on Ukraine issues. A story worth explaining? The whole scheme began to look like a Democratic plot. And suddenly, the incessant pro-impeachment media went dark on their central figure.

His testimony was no longer the piece de Resistance. Pardon the pun.

Susan Ferrechio at the Washington Examiner noted that Republicans planned to ask this whistleblower all kinds of questions about when he met with Schiff's staff and how they coordinated. "But it is appearing more likely Republicans will never have the chance to ask the whistleblower any questions at all about how closely he worked with Schiff's team," she said.

Even some of the liberal "fact-checkers" felt pressed to admit Schiff lied when he claimed on national TV that he and his staff never met with this whistleblower. Clearly, he doesn't want any more questions about how coordinated this impeachment plot is. A GOP source told the Examiner, "At some point, both Schiff and the whistleblower came to the conclusion that his personal testimony stands to do more harm than good to both of them."

The backpedaling has been furious. Schiff appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and said, "given that we already have the call record, we don't need the whistleblower who wasn't on the call to tell us what took place during the call." Both Schiff and CBS' Margaret Brennan agreed the most important priority of this probe is keeping the identity of the whistleblower a secret — without questioning for a moment how that could be considered fair to the president, who's the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Imagine the Republicans had tried to impeach then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 for some phone call he made to a foreign leader, and that they'd said they had an anonymous whistleblower who never heard Clinton's phone call. The press would have mocked all of it as an enormous waste of time and money and a huge distraction from the legislative "business of the people."

Their completely different and partisan reaction to this only underlines how much collusion goes on between the journalists and the Democrats. They're hard to distinguish from one another. They use all the same talking points and catchphrases. They've had a shared goal of impeaching Trump since the day he was inaugurated. There is no balance or fairness in anything the media "reports" on this brazen attempt to overthrow this administration."

Previous acme scheme failed....

View attachment 67266299

On to the next!..

View attachment 67266300
Click to expand...

As long as we are on memes.

46bf42d4ee14395b4d779e494cfd1a5e.png



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bandit said:
As long as we are on memes.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

She has no choice but to push a bad position.

Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades


"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.

In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.

In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.

How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen."

We can extrapolate how this latest in a long line of acme schemes will end up.

wilefly.JPG
 
ocean515 said:
The whistleblower met with Schiff's people, that has been proven. The whistleblower failed to report that fact to the IG. That fact has been proven.

Prove the whistleblower and Schiff lied when they said they met prior to the report being filed.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the CIA democrat operative went around the system to go to shiftys office when his account was deemed biased and not urgent using the appropriate channels.

Quite the heroes welcome in contrast to how they treated Snowden.
 
akyron said:
Thank you.

She has no choice but to push a bad position.

Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades


"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.

In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.

In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.

How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen."

We can extrapolate how this latest in a long line of acme schemes will end up.

View attachment 67266322
Click to expand...

Of course you can, did it take long to write all that horse [emoji90]? Wait, wasn’t that the guy with trump who pleaded guilty for insider trading on his phone while at a function with trump? At the Whitehouse? A known trump supporter, yeah that’s right, what was his name?

That’s right Chris Collins and his boy. Ever come up with anything original to try and put on democrats?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bandit said:
Of course you can, did it take long to write all that horse [emoji90]? Wait, wasn’t that the guy with trump who pleaded guilty for insider trading on his phone while at a function with trump? At the Whitehouse? A known trump supporter, yeah that’s right, what was his name?

That’s right Chris Collins and his boy. Ever come up with anything original to try and put on democrats?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So are you contending Pelosi did not bypass laws that would apply to the rest of us to make a ton of cash?

Confronting Pelosi on insider trading

""Nobody would talk to us." That's what 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft says happened when he tried to get members of Congress to talk about "insider trading" on Capitol Hill.

Back in November, when 60 Minutes aired "Insiders," it was illegal for member of Congress to make stock trades using inside information they learn while working on legislation. Kroft had some questions about unsavory-seeming stock trades by lawmakers, but unsurprisingly nobody would give him an interview. So, Steve had to find other ways to get some answers.

As you'll see on Overtime this week, Steve called on lawmakers at their homes, attempted to track others down in their offices, and finally ended up asking questions at press conferences held by Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.

"You don't like to do that stuff," Kroft told Overtime producer David Rubin. "But on the other hand, if they don't want to talk to you and they don't want to give you an interview, and they are in powerful positions and play a prominent role in the story that you're doing, then you feel like sometimes you've got to do it."

Steve's 60 Minutes piece,Insiders, was produced by Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder"-CBS
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's just utterly absurd.
Click to expand...
Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

Shifty seeks cover from his operatives in the NYT and they blow up his acme scheme instead. Ouch.

Schiff Got Early Account msnbs
Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations-NYT
Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, and Matthew Rosenberg--(It takes three reporters apparently to coordinate Shiffs office. they still screwed it up.)

"Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials."--(Current and former American Officials...Hillary Clinton and Wilson from the grave perhaps? Was a seance involved?)
The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined (The great hero?) he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. (Utterly rejected by the release of the transcript in a brilliant and unexpected move.) It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.(Rejected due to lack of credibility and vague hearsay. Acme scheme failed. Can they just change the rules? Send another order..Hey! Adam Shiff is the biggest liar these days...Lets go to him!)

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures(Already off the rails), suggested the officer find a lawyer (Chuck Schumer is passing by..Hey Chuckie.! You got a spare ambulance chaser??.. SURE!)to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. (Who is the aid and what exactly was shared?) The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.(Why not?! Mr Shifty. I got a Lispy democrat here that wants to help get trump...Zooom..There would be an afterburner fire trail left when wile e coyote gets going.)

wilerunning.JPG

“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Mr. Schiff. (The correct thing to do was fill out the form. Not run to one wile e coyote. Well known riffraff.)

In his whistle-blower complaint, the officer said Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate a host of issues that could benefit him politically, including one connected to a son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

A reconstituted transcript released by the White House of a call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine backed up the whistle-blower’s account, which was itself based on information from a half-dozen American officials and deemed credible by the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson. (A shadow decoder ring version of what is publicly available for all to see. Untrue assertions for all to see.)

"The whistle-blower’s decision to offer what amounted to an early warning to the intelligence committee’s Democrats is also sure to thrust Mr. Schiff even more forcefully into the center of the controversy as a target of Mr. Trump’s."

They did not go the committee for help with the process. Schiff says that but NYT lays it out stupidly in vivid contrast. He tried and failed to get trump with false, bad partisan, biased, third hand information as stated by the IG already "biased".

Shifty and a pack of lawyers then wrote up his impeachment "report" and told him to wrap himself up in the "whistleblower" statute and make a mockery of actual whistleblowers.
 
akyron said:
*Unhinged Rambling*
Click to expand...

You're entire post is one big long rambling conspiracy theory. And it's completely negated by the fact that the complaint went to an IG, appointed by Trump, and found to be credible, and then on to the DNI, appointed by Trump, who stated

4 Things We Learned From Maguire'''s Testimony | Fortune
"I want to state support for the whistleblower and the right and the laws," said Maguire, who took on his role on August 16. The whistleblower "did the right thing," Maguire said, telling House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff that because of executive privilege, he was not unable to share the details of the complaint with the House intel committee.
Click to expand...

You are doing nothing to change the facts. You are making up conspiracy theories but the reality is that the whistleblower has been right on every detail so far and we've had aides testify under oath and tons of reporting on the matter. You're entire complaint boils down to "but why did he talk to a staff member of a committee controlled by the democrats!?" and "Why did they tell him to follow the law and go to the proper authorities!?"
 
roughdraft274 said:
You're entire post is one big long rambling conspiracy theory."
Click to expand...

What do you have against the new york times? Why do you hate freedom of the press? It took THREE reporters to coordinate with schiftys office and they still messed it up.

"Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding"-Bypassed the process. Cheated to get his way like a good democrat.--All blown up by the unanticipated release of the official transcript. What a brilliant move. democrats never saw it coming and were left scrambling to alter their fake narrative.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
What do you have against the new york times? Why do you hate freedom of the press? It took THREE reporters to coordinate with schiftys office and they still messed it up.

"Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding"-Bypassed the process. Cheated to get his way like a good democrat.--All blown up by the unanticipated release of the official transcript. What a brilliant move. democrats never saw it coming and were left scrambling to alter their fake narrative.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with what was reported. And if what they had reported was so damaging you wouldn't have had to keep adding in your own conspiracy theory commentary. You can't just add in ****ty little quips and then pretend they are true. If I wanted that crap I'd listen to Alex Jones and join a truther forum.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The whistleblower came to a committee staff member for advice on what to do with his complaint. The member pointed him to the correct legal process and legal authority.

So now it looks like you are going to change your story. It looks like you finally given up on your made up story that Schiff had a secret meeting with the whistleblower.

So the new story is that because is staff member pointed someone to the proper authorities, and somehow you are finding a way to be upset about that?
Click to expand...

Nice story. Why would you make it up and think someone would buy it?

You have no idea what took place.

Really lame.
 
Pound4abrown said:
I don't know why you believe Schiff when he says something, since you say he is a liar.
But when Donald J Trump says something, your position is he didn't actually say it.
It must be like a No'easter in your head trying to keep all of these fallacies from colliding.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.
 
akyron said:
So are you contending Pelosi did not bypass laws that would apply to the rest of us to make a ton of cash?

Confronting Pelosi on insider trading

""Nobody would talk to us." That's what 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft says happened when he tried to get members of Congress to talk about "insider trading" on Capitol Hill.

Back in November, when 60 Minutes aired "Insiders," it was illegal for member of Congress to make stock trades using inside information they learn while working on legislation. Kroft had some questions about unsavory-seeming stock trades by lawmakers, but unsurprisingly nobody would give him an interview. So, Steve had to find other ways to get some answers.

As you'll see on Overtime this week, Steve called on lawmakers at their homes, attempted to track others down in their offices, and finally ended up asking questions at press conferences held by Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.

"You don't like to do that stuff," Kroft told Overtime producer David Rubin. "But on the other hand, if they don't want to talk to you and they don't want to give you an interview, and they are in powerful positions and play a prominent role in the story that you're doing, then you feel like sometimes you've got to do it."

Steve's 60 Minutes piece,Insiders, was produced by Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder"-CBS
Click to expand...

Not pretending anything, just pointing out that no amount of ignorance on your part will work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
ocean515 said:
Nice story. Why would you make it up and think someone would buy it?

You have no idea what took place.

Really lame.
Click to expand...

I'm stating exactly whats been reported, what's been claimed by the whistleblowers lawyer and by the committee staff member and spokesman. That's the best info we have to go off of and we have no info showing it's not accurate. But you want me to assume some nefarious action with no evidence.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm stating exactly whats been reported, what's been claimed by the whistleblowers lawyer and by the committee staff member and spokesman. That's the best info we have to go off of and we have no info showing it's not accurate. But you want me to assume some nefarious action with no evidence.
Click to expand...

What's been reported by biased witnesses who's very objective the whistblower is playing to.

That's called hostile witnesses.

Don't forget, Schiff and the Whistleblower failed to inform anyone that they had contact long before the complaint was filed.
 
ocean515 said:
What's been reported by biased witnesses who's very objective the whistblower is playing to.

That's called hostile witnesses.

Don't forget, Schiff and the Whistleblower failed to inform anyone that they had contact long before the complaint was filed.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are lying. They didn't have contact. The whistleblower reached out to the committee, the staff member told him to go to the proper authority and relayed back to Schiff that someone had reached out to make a complaint and he told him where to go. That's not contact. That's not a meeting. And even if he had met with Schiff and told him every detail, it still doesn't matter. Trumps actions matter. That's why you're deflecting and lying.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Once again, you are lying. They didn't have contact. The whistleblower reached out to the committee, the staff member told him to go to the proper authority and relayed back to Schiff that someone had reached out to make a complaint and he told him where to go. That's not contact. That's not a meeting. And even if he had met with Schiff and told him every detail, it still doesn't matter. Trumps actions matter. That's why you're deflecting and lying.
Click to expand...

Stop spreading lies.

LOL
 
ocean515 said:
Stop spreading lies.

LOL
Click to expand...

You claimed they met and lied about. They never met, and Schiff didn't even know his identity. It's really that simple. You lied, and now you are lying about lying.
 
ocean515 said:
What's been reported by biased witnesses who's very objective the whistblower is playing to.

That's called hostile witnesses.

Don't forget, Schiff and the Whistleblower failed to inform anyone that they had contact long before the complaint was filed.
Click to expand...



Adam Schiff Knew About Whistleblower Complaint Before It Was Filed

"Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague."

Vague, biased, and non urgent was the exact classification.

Like a good democrat...They went around the system and cheated.

"The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff."

Does anyone actually believe shifty wasnt neck deep in this?

Three NYT reporters collude with shifts office to spin this story and they still messed it up. They had weeks to work on this cia democrat operatives fake impeachment report. (If such a person even exists).

It was a pricey but brilliant and unexpected move to release the transcript to blow their false narrative out of the water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom