Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-27-2019, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, I got the point. I was to describe me as "acting a martyr" and explain how I was wrong. Sorta like you've done in this post. I just chose to ignore it and take the higher ground. 

The whistleblower reported second hand information. Color it how ever you want. I've grown tired of the BS

Where did the second hand info come from?

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2019, 12:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon this knowledge, we can deduce the people using terms such as hearsay are doing so as an attempt to discredit it.

Deduce whatever you want. I have 0 idea where you get that I've discredited the information. In the question you asked you said "hearsay" and "second hand" and I've already said use whatever term makes you feel better; but that's what the information I gave my Commander in the hypothetical you provided and it's exactly what this whistleblower received. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2019, 12:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where did the second hand info come from?

Reportedly it came from folks with first hand knowledge. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2019, 12:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Deduce whatever you want. I have 0 idea where you get that I've discredited the information. In the question you asked you said "hearsay" and "second hand" and I've already said use whatever term makes you feel better; but that's what the information I gave my Commander in the hypothetical you provided and it's exactly what this whistleblower received. 

Did you give your commander info that wasn’t credible? If it was credible, did the commander ever dismiss it because it was secondhand?

The answer to both is no.

Any attempt to dismiss the info as hearsay is simply an attempt to discredit the info as unreliable. Hell, every intel brief Trump receives is hearsay or secondhand, but for some reason the White House doesn’t call his briefings hearsay or secondhand info. Why do you think that is? (Warning: rhetorical question I don’t expect you to answer because we both know the answer already and I’m not interested in BS.)

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2019, 09:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol

I would tell you what you can do with this response. But we all know what would happen. So I'll go with "sick burn".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2019, 12:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Reportedly it came from folks with first hand knowledge. 

Reportedly, who do those people work for?

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2019, 01:01 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Reportedly, who do those people work for?

I have 0 idea. I do not know who they are; nor who is the whistleblower. Is this going to go on for the full 20 questions or can you just cut to the chase? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2019, 01:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have 0 idea. I do not know who they are; nor who is the whistleblower. Is this going to go on for the full 20 questions or can you just cut to the chase? 

Yeah, I forgot you’re simultaneously triggered by questions and always answer questions (except when you don’t.)

Anyway, zero idea? Kinda like how you wrote there is zero ways for a commander to verify hearsay from his scouts? Ever heard of a little something called a leader’s recon? Before actions on the OBJ? Ring any bells?

Anyway, who would have access to classified White Houspe phone calls? And access to classified reports of classified White House phone calls?

#?mark#triggered

[Bengalzona]

(09-28-2019, 12:31 AM)Synric Wrote: Lol. Head in the dirt statement. The US is a melting pot...Foriegn involvement in the government is a given.

Is there a law against foreign lobbyists? No and even if there was it wouldnt stop foreign governments buying a lobbyist.

The U.S. is the melting pot because people renounce their allegiance to other countries and come here to live, not because they retain their citizenship there and just come here to pay off lawmakers to do the bidding of foreign powers.

Actually, there are laws against foreign lobbyists. Quite a few. Have you ever heard of emoluments?

[GMDino]

Part of the problem is the Trump defenders want their opinions to count equally as the facts...the facts that show their opinions are wrong.

LINDSEY GRAHAM: The whistleblower complaint is just hearsay.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the whistleblower complaint is matched by the call record in numerous ways.

GRAHAM: Well, you’ve got an opinion, I've got an opinion. pic.twitter.com/2L5sweS64L

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 29, 2019

 

Eric Trump tries to gaslight people on Fox & Friends, pretends the Ukraine call "transcript" released by the White House doesn't corroborate the whistleblower's transcript when the opposite is true pic.twitter.com/VEs5ZOmnCw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2019

 

#ThatAwkwardMoment when #KevinMcCarthy’s paper-thin White House talking points are debunked by the original White House transcript.https://t.co/rcCQFZlnNT

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) September 30, 2019

[Belsnickel]

I found this to be an interesting article: https://www.businessinsider.com/30-republicans-senate-impeachment-trump-2019-9

Quote:As many as 30 Republican senators would vote for the impeachment of US President Donald Trump over his request for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, said a top GOP strategist during a cable TV news segment Wednesday night.

Mike Murphy, who helped run presidential campaigns for senators John McCain and Mitt Romney, said during an interview on MSNBC that a Republican senator told him their caucus would likely vote to remove the president if the votes could be kept anonymous.

With 33 Senate seats contested in the 2020 elections, Republican lawmakers risk infuriating pro-Trump voters with a vote to remove the president. At the same time, they could face the wrath of moderate swing voters who are far less supportive of the president.

Politics over country.

[GMDino]

(09-30-2019, 10:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I found this to be an interesting article: https://www.businessinsider.com/30-republicans-senate-impeachment-trump-2019-9


Politics over country.

Interesting, but not surprising.

[GMDino]

Lost in all of this the POTUS tried to talk about immigration again and I think there was one other non-impeachment related tweet but it was completely blown over.

He has lost the ability to control the conversation and you can see it in his rage tweeting for the last three days.

[GMDino]

Trump has tweeted (usually in ALL CAPS) 12 times in the last two hours.

Really working hard for the country.

[BmorePat87]

Now he wants Adam Schiff arrested for treason

[*Nately120*]

(09-30-2019, 12:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Now he wants Adam Schiff arrested for treason

Lock everyone except Trump up!

[GMDino]

(09-30-2019, 12:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Now he wants Adam Schiff arrested for treason

Almost like when you put a guy in a position he doesn't understand and shows no desire to learn about he will be a complete failure.

I'm old enough to remember those heady days when folks defended Trump for doing things "his way"...which, as it turns out, ends of being illegal in a lot of circumstances.

[BmorePat87]

(09-30-2019, 12:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Lock everyone except Trump up!

(09-30-2019, 12:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Almost like when you put a guy in a position he doesn't understand and shows no desire to learn about he will be a complete failure.

I'm old enough to remember those heady days when folks defended Trump for doing things "his way"...which, as it turns out, ends of being illegal in a lot of circumstances.

I mean he CAN tell Burr to arrest him for treason. Just not if any of his lackeys would act on it or how far it’ll go in court.

[Belsnickel]

[*Nately120*]

(09-30-2019, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

If only we knew how many of the anonymous republicans who support his impeachment are "savage" as well.