Page 22 of 174 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272122 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 2607
  1. #316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Yep- that's why Barr is in Italy- getting at the actual truth of the matter.
    He’s in Italy investigating Trump’s enemies, just as Pomp is investigating Hill’s emails. Trump is using the executive branch of the federal government to attack citizens.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  2. #317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Everyone who's ever been impeached can claim it's political. If the Dems were really out to impeach no matter what they'd have done it long ago. Trump brought this on himself by abusing the power of his office. What's unprecedented about this inquiry? You're spouting more debunked RW talking points. Like how they "changed" the whistle blower statute. They didn't. You gulp it up anyway.

    How do you explain why the IG of the State Department needs an emergency meeting with Congress if everything the 3 Musketeers & Crazy Rudy are doing is on the up and up?
    It’s completely unprecedented and I’ve thoroughly explained how. If you can’t comprehend, you’re kind of dumb.

    And no, they did change the terms.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...onize-hearsay/

    ...There Is No Dispute that the Form Changed

    The detractors are right about one thing: the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) statute doesn’t actually prohibit a purported whistleblower from initiating a complaint based on hearsay. But the clear language of the previous IC IG guidance never stated that it did. As Sean Davis reported in The Federalist Friday, quoting from the original documents:

    A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.
    ‘The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,’ the previous form stated under the bolded heading ‘FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.’ ‘This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.’
    ‘If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.’
    The documents clearly show the process was changed, and the previously explicit regulatory requirements for first-hand information were suddenly eliminated. It is undisputed that the instructions for the form have changed...

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    36,676
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    It’s completely unprecedented and I’ve thoroughly explained how. If you can’t comprehend, you’re kind of dumb.

    And no, they did change the terms.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01...onize-hearsay/

    ...There Is No Dispute that the Form Changed

    The detractors are right about one thing: the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) statute doesn’t actually prohibit a purported whistleblower from initiating a complaint based on hearsay. But the clear language of the previous IC IG guidance never stated that it did. As Sean Davis reported in The Federalist Friday, quoting from the original documents:

    A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.
    ‘The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,’ the previous form stated under the bolded heading ‘FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED.’ ‘This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing.’
    ‘If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.’
    The documents clearly show the process was changed, and the previously explicit regulatory requirements for first-hand information were suddenly eliminated. It is undisputed that the instructions for the form have changed...
    I could not read your WSJ article. It's unprecedented that they haven't voted yet? Were they supposed to vote before gathering evidence?

  4. #319

    Default

    I suspect the Dems heard from the “WB” and what the claims were. The Dems believed it.

    The Dems also thought that, if true, Trump would release the transcript, thinking it was more damning than it actually was. They thought wrong.

    They started the phony impeachment inquiry process before the had the transcript and, supposedly, the complaint. The MSM said there was a “promise” by Trump, many mentions of investigating Biden, a quid pro quo, etc. It wasn’t true.

    But the Dems had already committed to the impeachment inquiry. They are left to make the most out of the call transcript and whatever else they can claim.

  5. #320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    I could not read your WSJ article. It's unprecedented that they haven't voted yet? Were they supposed to vote before gathering evidence?
    I posted the key items from the WSJ that Blizzard posted. It’s in black and white. Post #308.

    They have the call transcript. We know what the accusations are.

    This is the basis for launching the impeachment inquiry. But the normal impeachment inquiry process is to vote to proceed. Kind of makes sense instead of using it as a tool to bludgeon an opponent and ensures that it is a non-partisan process.

    Nancy does want to do that b/c she doesn’t want to put some Dem House members on the spot and wants it to be totally partisan in fact finding.

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Reality, USA
    Posts
    9,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamiche View Post
    He’s in Italy investigating Trump’s enemies, just as Pomp is investigating Hill’s emails. Trump is using the executive branch of the federal government to attack citizens.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Silence from Jam Jam on the FISA abuse of private citizens........

    Hypocrisy.

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    36,676
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    I posted the key items from the WSJ that Blizzard posted. It’s in black and white. Post #308.

    They have the call transcript. We know what the accusations are.

    This is the basis for launching the impeachment inquiry. But the normal impeachment inquiry process is to vote to proceed. Kind of makes sense instead of using it as a tool to bludgeon an opponent and ensures that it is a non-partisan process.

    Nancy does want to do that b/c she doesn’t want to put some Dem House members on the spot and wants it to be totally partisan in fact finding.
    They should vote to proceed then. More than 218 have already come out in favor of it, including Amash and one R. She's not protecting anyone.

  8. #323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    They should vote to proceed then. More than 218 have already come out in favor of it, including Amash and one R. She's not protecting anyone.
    She’s not protecting anyone? She said a vote would leave Republicans unprotected. Hahaha

    Yes, they should vote. But Nancy won’t. And you didn’t address the partisan aspect of not allowing Republican congressmen to bring their witnesses and have some power in the process. UNPRECEDENTED!

    This is a partisan move to control the narrative and smear Trump. That’s it.

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Windom, MN
    Posts
    7,966

    Default

    In all fairness, there is a timing issue here.

    If there are going to be impeachment proceedings, the worst possible scenario is that they run into the heart of the campaign season next summer and fall.

    One way or another, I suspect both sides would like to wrap this up - IF possible - in a timely fashion.

    One an Impeachment proceeding begins, Washington will come to a dead stop until it's over.

    Can you imagine the Party Conventions taking place in the middle of an Impeachment trial in the Senate? Would the Republican convention have to endorse a 'backup' candidate in case Trump would be convicted and removed from office?

    That would make the current mess look tiny by comparison. So, if this is going to happen, I think the goal is to get it done as soon as possible.

    if the Dems really wanted to hose Trump, they would try to time things so the Trial was taking place as close to Election day as possible.

  10. #325

    Default

    A piece of news from the NYT, Adam Stiff saw a draft of the “WB” complaint before the acting DNI and the IC IG.

    Not the correct process.

  11. #326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    You have all the evidence. A phone call transcript.

    People can disagree on the meaning of it, but if the meaning can’t be demonstrably proven to be unlawful or an abuse of power, there should be no impeachment.

    This is about politics and nothing else.
    As you already know, it’s not the thing, it’s the cover-up/obstruction.

  12. #327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MnplsGopher View Post
    As you already know, it’s not the thing, it’s the cover-up/obstruction.
    What cover up? What President has released a transcript of his phone call with a foreign leader. There was no "thing" except another invented witch hunt. There was no cover up of the thing that didn't exist either.

    The cover up that is going to get people is the fraudulent Russian collusion investigation. That two plus year cover up is going to leave a mark on some folks.

  13. #328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    What cover up? What President has released a transcript of his phone call with a foreign leader. There was no "thing" except another invented witch hunt. There was no cover up of the thing that didn't exist either.

    The cover up that is going to get people is the fraudulent Russian collusion investigation. That two plus year cover up is going to leave a mark on some folks.
    More bull**** from you. The fact that selected conversations were put into the secure system would be the cover-up. This isn't hard, unless you're such a boot-licking sycophant that you're forever unwilling to see the truth.

  14. #329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio Badger View Post
    More bull**** from you. The fact that selected conversations were put into the secure system would be the cover-up. This isn't hard, unless you're such a boot-licking sycophant that you're forever unwilling to see the truth.
    Radio- he had a number of calls leaked. They put the calls in a secure system to protect executive privilege and to protect the foreign leader. Obama did the same without even having suffered the leaks. This is per Susan Rice. Thanks for posting.

  15. #330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio Badger View Post
    boot-licking .
    What is it with leftists and the constant use of this word?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •