Fact check: Trump falsely claims whistleblower rules changed just before Ukraine complaint

[Jack Hays]

LYING!!? :2rofll:

No it's not. You quoted my entire post, and said, "Tsk tsk. An ad hominem argument won't change the facts."

First of all, I acknowledged and accepted the "facts."

Second, if I'd started and ended with an attack on Kessler, that's an ad hominem argument. Effectively saying, "Kessler is worthless, here is specifically why this particular argument (that's the subject of the post) is banal and an example of why he's worthless, that this kind of fact check could by done by college newspapers" isn't an ad hominem, because I'm engaging his argument in this case, and other arguments he's made, to defend my opening point about his output in general.

You opened with an ad hominem. At least have the integrity to own your action.

 

[JasperL]

You opened with an ad hominem. At least have the integrity to own your action.

No, I didn't "open" with an ad hominem, because to say that is to misuse the term, or to not understand it. I opened it with a criticism of his output in general, "worthless at his job," but that is NOT an ad hominem argument. Not every criticism of a person is an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. To believe that it is to misunderstand the term, and why it's a logical fallacy.

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Criticizing the person AND the argument is not a logical fallacy. My argument about why the article is banal does not rely on the opening insult. You could delete that opening insult and not change my point in the slightest.

Saying, effectively, this article is banal and here is why in this case, and here are some other examples of similar arguments, hence my conclusion he's worthless at his job, is also NOT ad hominem. I think you need to look these things up before calling others liars or without integrity because you are ignorant or are pretending to be.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I didn't "open" with an ad hominem, because to say that is to misuse the term, or to not understand it. I opened it with a criticism of his output in general, "worthless at his job," but that is NOT an ad hominem argument. Not every criticism of a person is an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. To believe that it is to misunderstand the term, and why it's a logical fallacy.



Criticizing the person AND the argument is not a logical fallacy. My argument about why the article is banal does not rely on the opening insult. You could delete that opening insult and not change my point in the slightest.

Saying, effectively, this article is banal and here is why in this case, and here are some other examples of similar arguments, hence my conclusion he's worthless at his job, is also NOT ad hominem. I think you need to look these things up before calling others liars or without integrity because you are ignorant or are pretending to be.

Flailing, and swinging after the bell. This matter has already been decided. You went ad hominem and got called on it. Try to do better next time.

 

[Crossfire]

Flailing, and swinging after the bell. This matter has already been decided. You went ad hominem and got called on it. Try to do better next time.

It is nigh impossible to get a member of the selective word parsing left to admit that they made a mistake. They can make up statement out of whole cloth from their ideological opponents, but when you call them out, they all become lawyer-like semantic zealots trying to twist their way out of blatant hypocrisy. It is truly a sight.

 

[JasperL]

Flailing, and swinging after the bell. This matter has already been decided. You went ad hominem and got called on it. Try to do better next time.

OK, so you called me a liar, and without integrity, because you insist on proving you are ignorant about what it means to engage in a logical fallacy. And then you declare yourself winner, by insisting your dumb/wrongheaded/ignorant interpretation is correct!

Pretty ****ing hilarious.

 

[JasperL]

It is nigh impossible to get a member of the selective word parsing left to admit that they made a mistake. They can make up statement out of whole cloth from their ideological opponents, but when you call them out, they all become lawyer-like semantic zealots trying to twist their way out of blatant hypocrisy. It is truly a sight.

If you want to address my argument on the merits, do it. You will fail like Jack did, but I'd love to see you try if you want to insult me behind my back.

FWIW, that right there ^^^^^, your post, is an ad hominem attack, because you didn't address a single word of my argument, but you did dismiss it by lumping me in with those on the left, and in general insulting me personally. If that was your point - good job!

 

[justabubba]

I've explained to you that rules and regulations provide how a statue can be used and are a part of the statue.

But you are quite wrong
The rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures are the guidance for implementing the law
They in no way constitute the law

 

[Crossfire]

If you want to address my argument on the merits, do it. You will fail like Jack did, but I'd love to see you try if you want to insult me behind my back.

FWIW, that right there ^^^^^, your post, is an ad hominem attack, because you didn't address a single word of my argument, but you did dismiss it by lumping me in with those on the left, and in general insulting me personally. If that was your point - good job!

First, I do not want to address your argument, ergo, I did not address your argument.

Second, I did not insult you behind your back, I made a post on an open forum, where everyone can read it. If I was to insult you behind your back, I would send a PM to a third party referring to you directly, which did not happen.

Lastly, why would you assume I was referring to you? I did not mention you. I may have been just making a general statement of fact. Unless, you are claiming that you are part of the selective word parsing left.

That will be enough of me failing, for now.

 

[JasperL]

First, I do not want to address your argument, ergo, I did not address your argument.

Second, I did not insult you behind your back, I made a post on an open forum, where everyone can read it. If I was to insult you behind your back, I would send a PM to a third party referring to you directly, which did not happen.

Lastly, why would you assume I was referring to you? I did not mention you. I may have been just making a general statement of fact. Unless, you are claiming that you are part of the selective word parsing left.

That will be enough of me failing, for now.

OK, at least you're open about not caring whether the merits of my argument with Jack were wrong, you just decided to attack liberals just because... Fair enough.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, so you called me a liar, and without integrity, because you insist on proving you are ignorant about what it means to engage in a logical fallacy. And then you declare yourself winner, by insisting your dumb/wrongheaded/ignorant interpretation is correct!

Pretty ****ing hilarious.

Sad to see how much your posting has degenerated over the past year or so.

 

[JasperL]

Sad to see how much your posting has degenerated over the past year or so.

LOL, it's just that I get tired of your nonsense. What do you expect when you maintain what you know is a bad argument while insulting my integrity?

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL, it's just that I get tired of your nonsense. What do you expect when you maintain what you know is a bad argument while insulting my integrity?

No. You've declined.

 

[JasperL]

No. You've declined.

Well, my day is ruined. Someone who argues from ignorance while insulting me doesn't approve of the level of my posts. Whatever will I do?

 

[Marine Electric]

The right wing talking point circulating in an attempt to defend Trump in the Trump/Ukraine Corruption scandal has been debunked, and now also debunked by the IC IG specifically as an official News Release.
Noting of course that even as misinformation, it was irrelevant...the transcript and Trump/Giuliani have agreed this occurred, it's not in question, and the investigation is now underway to lay out all the facts.

The President of the United States is pushing misinformation, along with The Federalist website.

CNN:


The IC IG has also now also officially released a statement debunking the conspiracy theory pushed by Trump and many Republicans, popularized by The Federalist

Official IC IG Government News Release



breaking news:
Fact check: Trump tweets conspiracy theory about whistleblower rules changing - CNNPolitics

IC IG Release:
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

Add another lie to the count:

Trump has made 12,019 false or misleading claims over 928 days

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/


:coffeepap

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, my day is ruined. Someone who argues from ignorance while insulting me doesn't approve of the level of my posts. Whatever will I do?

You're just making my case. You used to be interesting and occasionally surprising. Now you're just tediously zealous.

 

[cabse5]

Article 1 gives the House that power to define it. The Senate decides it. The Chief Justice presides to keep order.

It is the responsibility and specialty of SCOTUS to ultimately determine what is a high crime and misdemeanor as it is with any other difference of opinion concerning The Constitution. Just like SCOTUS should or ultimately will decide if Pelosi has the authority according to The Constitution to have an impeachment inquiry w/o having a vote in the house.

 

[cabse5]

McCabe was fired for lying. None of the others were <like Comey, fired for lying>.

Are you trying to make a point? It's not Comey's fault that the Presiden't is too ****ing corrupt and stupid to keep himself from touching the hot stove twice. I've seen animals learn that lesson faster.

Technically your were right when you posted, for example, that Comey wasn't fired for lying but lying is what Comey did, nonetheless, and lying is one reason why Trump fired Comey.

 

[ClaraD]

It is the responsibility and specialty of SCOTUS to ultimately determine what is a high crime and misdemeanor as it is with any other difference of opinion concerning The Constitution. Just like SCOTUS should or ultimately will decide if Pelosi has the authority according to The Constitution to have an impeachment inquiry w/o having a vote in the house.

SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction, this is a political, not criminal case and is the sole right of Congress to determine what is or isn't a high crime or misdemeanor...Congress can impeach him for being orange.

 

[Jack Hays]

We Know Schiff Lied. The Question Now Is Why?
Adriana Cohen, Boston Herald

 

[JasperL]

It is the responsibility and specialty of SCOTUS to ultimately determine what is a high crime and misdemeanor as it is with any other difference of opinion concerning The Constitution. Just like SCOTUS should or ultimately will decide if Pelosi has the authority according to The Constitution to have an impeachment inquiry w/o having a vote in the house.

That's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen. That would put SCOTUS as the final arbiter, not the impeachment, not the trial, not the 2/3 of the Senate that would vote for removal. I don't know why you'd want to delegate that to 5 unaccountable judges in black robes.

 

[JasperL]

We Know Schiff Lied. The Question Now Is Why?
Adriana Cohen, Boston Herald

Joseph Maguire: Chairman, the horse has left the barn. You have all of the information, you have the whistleblower complaint, you have the letter from the ICIG, you have the office of legal council opinion, and you have the transcript of the phone call.

 

[Jack Hays]

Joseph Maguire: Chairman, the horse has left the barn. You have all of the information, you have the whistleblower complaint, you have the letter from the ICIG, you have the office of legal council opinion, and you have the transcript of the phone call.

Yes, and . . . ?

 

[JasperL]

Yes, and . . . ?

Seemed self explanatory to me. So we know Schiff "lied." Why does it matter? If he found out the contents of the complaint ahead of time, how does it change anything in the list - the transcript, the complaint, the IC IG opinion, now the texts, the Volker testimony? It doesn't.

The only people whining about "Schiff lied!" are right wing hacks determined to shift the focus from Trump and the actions outlined in the large amount of evidence at this point to Schiff. Put another way, the WB complaint stands or falls on the contents of the complaint.

For what it's worth, it's pretty hilarious that author whining about Schiff's "lie" while repeatedly lying herself. From the article:

But that's not all. Another red flag indicating the impeachment inquiry is a political hit job against the president, The New York Times reported this week that the whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff, a known Trump antagonist who was one of the chief architects and vocal proponents of the now debunked Russian collusion hoax.

We know the bolded is a lie, the question is why this hack is lying? The NYT said the WB sought advice from staff, not Schiff.

Why did the whistleblower commiserate with Schiff's office and seek guidance on filing the complaint?

That too is a lie - he didn't seek guidance from his "office" but from HPSCI staffers. Why is she lying?

They could've gone to the CIA's human resources department, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Senate Judiciary Committee or elsewhere. But no. The "whistleblower" went directly to Schiff

She lied again. Why is she lying?

More to the point, going to HPSCI for guidance in reporting a WB complaint meant for HPSCI hardly seems out of line. If he goes to CIA human resources, or to OLC there is no protection in the law for the WB. He could approach the Senate, but not doing one of several options doesn't indict the WB or impact the credibility of the complaint.

Donald Trump's chief nemesis, who's been on a multiyear crusade to remove the president from office by any means necessary -- even if that means spreading false information and peddling conspiracy theories.

His history, no matter what you think of it, has no bearing on the WB complaint or any of the other evidence.

 

[Jack Hays]

Seemed self explanatory to me. So we know Schiff "lied." Why does it matter? If he found out the contents of the complaint ahead of time, how does it change anything in the list - the transcript, the complaint, the IC IG opinion, now the texts, the Volker testimony? It doesn't.

The only people whining about "Schiff lied!" are right wing hacks determined to shift the focus from Trump and the actions outlined in the large amount of evidence at this point to Schiff. Put another way, the WB complaint stands or falls on the contents of the complaint.

For what it's worth, it's pretty hilarious that author whining about Schiff's "lie" while repeatedly lying herself. From the article:



We know the bolded is a lie, the question is why this hack is lying? The NYT said the WB sought advice from staff, not Schiff.



That too is a lie - he didn't seek guidance from his "office" but from HPSCI staffers. Why is she lying?



She lied again. Why is she lying?

More to the point, going to HPSCI for guidance in reporting a WB complaint meant for HPSCI hardly seems out of line. If he goes to CIA human resources, or to OLC there is no protection in the law for the WB. He could approach the Senate, but not doing one of several options doesn't indict the WB or impact the credibility of the complaint.



His history, no matter what you think of it, has no bearing on the WB complaint or any of the other evidence.

I'm afraid it's Schiff who lied. Regardless, I don't think the facts are really in dispute. The question is whether they are illegal or impeachable. Based on 40 years in/around the federal government, I'm not at all sure of that.

[h=3]Schiff's false claim his committee had not spoken to the ...
[/h]
Claim: [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, we would like to.”
Claimed by: [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Adam Schiff[/COLOR]
Fact check by Washington Post: [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Four Pinocchios[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

 

[JasperL]

I'm afraid it's Schiff who lied.

So did the author of that piece, repeatedly, shamelessly, while complaining about "lies" by Schiff.

Regardless, I don't think the facts are really in dispute. The question is whether they are illegal or impeachable. Based on 40 years in/around the federal government, I'm not at all sure of that.

That was of course my point with the quote from Maguire.

And you've already posted the piece by Kessler. It was no more meaningful or useful the first time than it is now, which is not at all meaningful. As you said, the facts speak for themselves at this point.