(09-27-2019, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not arguing about anything.  I just think it is funny that some people like you are obsessing over the term "hearsay" when every police report is also "hearsay".

Why keep obsessing over a term like that when it means zero in context of the investigation.  The complaint is based on first hand eyewitness reports.  When you report that you have been mugged that is "hearsay" in the officers report an warrant, but it is based on first hand eyewitness testimony.

Any defense attorney obsessing over how that warrant and report were "hearsay" would be laughed out of court, but the echo chamber has convinced all the Trump supporters that this is a crucial point to make.

(09-27-2019, 11:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a huge difference between a legitimate on-going authorized investigation into a sitting President and a secret investigation into a private citizen who is the political foe of the President.

Congressional oversight over the office of the President is one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution.  This letter was just them doing their job.  That has nothing to do with a President using the power of his official position to investigate private citizens who is his political opponenet.

(09-27-2019, 10:27 AM)Dill Wrote: It seems "proper"; but I have some questions.  Check out article 1 of this treaty we signed with the Ukraine in 1998. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12978-Ukraine-Law-Enforcement-MLAT-7.22.1998.pdf.  Ukraine is expected to cooperate with US investigations.  A possible problem here is that according to the Treaty such inquiries are expected to be initiated by a "central authority," in this case the AG's office, the AG of the guy under investigation. The current president, however, complicates the matter, as privately "cooperating" with him to hinder the Mueller investigation would be a breach of the treaty.

These Senators are--officially and publicly--exploring the possibility that Trump was using his office to block Ukrainian cooperation into the Mueller probe. Doesn't matter if they are "political foes" of Trump and are not on Mueller's team. What matters is whether the Mueller investigation is being impeded, either at direct request from Trump or by Ukrainians currying favor on their own initiative.The senators could argue they are exercising official oversight, which they do have. The exec might counter they are usurping exec foreign policy powers.

Also, OFFICIAL quid pro quo is common in diplomacy and all manner of trade cooperation. Sanctions are a kind of "quid pro quo--or else." If "implying how to investigate" means do your job, as your own law and our mutual treaty requires, then that request certainly is proper.

The problem with the Trump quid pro quo is not that it was a quid pro quo, but that it was an unofficial and private use of official aid to get dirt on an opponent--in short, an abuse of the power of office. Corruption.

(09-27-2019, 12:44 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So I appreciate the response.  And read the Treaty.  So I am assuming toward your reference to the attorney general refers to Article 2, section 2 because there is a lot of talk about central authorities in this.  Interesting reading.  Generally the type of stuff I wouldn't read.

(09-27-2019, 12:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Would it be less "obsessive' if I said second-hand information instead of hearsay? 

(09-27-2019, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It would be proper to say the report is based on statements from multiple first-hand eyewitnesses.

(09-27-2019, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would it be OK to say the whistleblower was not a witness to any of the acts and the first-hand witness are anonymous? 

Quote:Pentagon Letter Undercuts Trump Assertion On Delaying Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption

Updated at 9:03 p.m. ET



Earlier this week, President Trump cited concerns about corruption as his rationale for blocking security assistance to Ukraine. But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability."


The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine. That aid was blocked by the White House until Sept. 11 and has since been released. It must be spent before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.


At a news conference on Wednesday wrapping up a three-day visit to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump repeated his professed concerns about corruption as the reason for holding up $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

"We want to make sure that country is honest," Trump said of Ukraine. "It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"


The Defense Department announced in mid-June that it would be sending $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine, which has been battling pro-Russia separatists near its eastern border with Russia since 2014.


But the White House blocked that assistance in July. That was prior to a phone call Trump made to Ukraine's recently elected leader, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
According to notes of that call released by the White House on Wednesday, Trump asked Zelenskiy to "look into" reports that former vice president and current Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden "went around bragging" that he stopped the Ukrainian government from looking into his son Hunter's activities in Ukraine.


Trump has denied seeking to pressure Zelenskiy into carrying out such a probe by withholding the military assistance. That aid was released Sept. 11 after an angry bipartisan response from Congress to reports that the money was being withheld.


Some congressional Republicans are defending Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy. "I think to suggest that this phone call was the president of the United States threatening to withhold aid to the Ukraine unless they did his political bidding," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., "is simply ridiculous."


Another explanation Trump has been giving for blocking the Ukraine assistance is his view that European allies are not contributing enough to that aid. "Europe and other nations [must] contribute to Ukraine," he told reporters at the U.N. on Tuesday. "Because they're not doing it. Just the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money."


Eight European embassies in Washington contacted by NPR on Wednesday reported no attempts by the Trump administration over the summer to increase their contributions to Ukraine. "There was no effort at all," said a senior official at the German Embassy, who requested anonymity to speak freely. "The topic was not brought up at all at recent meetings we've had."


European diplomats hasten to point out that they have been contributing far more to Ukraine than what Trump has claimed. "Our bilateral assistance to Ukraine of $1.4 billion is almost at the U.S. level," said the German Embassy official. The U.S. has disbursed nearly $1.5 billion since 2014 in security assistance to Ukraine, while the European Union has provided about $15 billion, mostly in the form of loans.


House committees that are starting impeachment inquiries are virtually certain to probe further into Trump's reasons for holding back assistance to Ukraine while he was seeking an investigation there of a potential Democratic rival in next year's election.

Read the letter below or here.

(09-27-2019, 01:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: drip...drip...drip...

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup


[url=https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6430088-Pentagon-Letter-On-Ukraine-Aid][/url]

(09-27-2019, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would it be OK to say the whistleblower was not a witness to any of the acts and the first-hand witness are anonymous? 

(09-27-2019, 02:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I guess it would be "ok,"  just not important.  It would be something to repeat on Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham, cuz then it sounds like the "second hand" facts have not been confirmed.  How can they start an impeachment inquiry on hearsay???? TRUMP HATE!!

Anyone accustomed to reading intel documents can see, from the report alone, how the relevant facts, chronology, and causal chain have been tightly locked down by someone who knows how to vet evidence, selecting what would be legally relevant from the mass of what is not.

Now that the facts, chronology, and causal connections have been and continue to be confirmed, there is no legitimate reason to refer to the evidentiary record as "based on hearsay" or the product of a "second-hand witness." 

--unless the intent is to confuse people who don't bother reading primary sources or familiarizing themselves with the law.  They won't really know what's there, except that it is "hearsay" and maybe from someone coached by Dems to cover Biden's abuse of office. . . etc.

(09-27-2019, 02:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I guess it would be "ok,"  just not important.  It would be something to repeat on Tucker, Hannity and Ingraham, cuz then it sounds like the "second hand" facts have not been confirmed.  How can they start an impeachment inquiry on hearsay???? TRUMP HATE!!

Anyone accustomed to reading intel documents can see, from the report alone, how the relevant facts, chronology, and causal chain have been tightly locked down by someone who knows how to vet evidence, selecting what would be legally relevant from the mass of what is not.

Now that the facts, chronology, and causal connections have been and continue to be confirmed, there is no legitimate reason to refer to the evidentiary record as "based on hearsay" or the product of a "second-hand witness." 

--unless the intent is to confuse people who don't bother reading primary sources or familiarizing themselves with the law.  They won't really know what's there, except that it is "hearsay" and maybe from someone coached by Dems to cover Biden's abuse of office. . . etc.

(09-27-2019, 04:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No matter where the information comes from, claims of government abuses of power need to be investigated if they are found to be credible.

Once the IG has decided it is credible and worthy of review, why bicker about whether or not the whistleblower had first hand experience or second hand knowledge. Find the truth in the claim.

(09-27-2019, 09:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Glad we agree that the report was hearsay. I think I was the first in this thread to suggest it as such and a bunch of smart guys told me I had no idea. The next thing I'm curious to see is the relationship the sources had with the whistleblower. Hopefully he was in their chain of command. If so, then no one should be able to refute the information provided.

As to the allegations of Political Bias. It means nothing to me.

(09-23-2019, 03:34 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So it is being reported that the whistleblower's info is thru hear say. He didn't actually hear it 1st hand.

(09-23-2019, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Completely agree. Just refusing to follow the law and turn over the complaint is an impeachable offense in itself.


This is highly doubtful considering a Trump appointed listed the complaint as both credible and urgent. Were the whistleblower's complaint based on hearsay, I doubt it would've been classified in that manner, especially by someone appointed by the administration.

Edit: I've seen the sourcing on this not from extremely biased media. So it seems it was indirect knowledge not obtained through the normal course of work by the whistleblower. The issue still remains that the IG determined the complaint to be credible and urgent, which is the highest classification they can give such complaints and requires by law to be sent to Congress.

(09-27-2019, 09:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Even if people didn't agree with him, it seemed most people respected Rudy.  He seems to have gone off the deep end.

Quote:Democrats subpoena Pompeo as part of impeachment inquiry

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs subpoenaed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents related to President Donald Trump's interactions with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as part of it's impeachment inquiry.
The subpoena, which demands Pompeo provide documents by Oct. 4, was accompanied by a plan to depose five State Department officials, including Ambassador Kurt Volker, who reportedly arranged for Trump's personal lawyer to meet with high-level Ukrainian officials, and Marie Yovanovitch, who was removed as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine by Trump.

"The subpoenaed documents shall be part of the impeachment inquiry and shared among the Committees. Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry,” wrote House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings in a joint letter to Pompeo.



The depositions are set to take place between Oct. 2 and Oct. 10, while Congress is out on a two-week recess.

(09-27-2019, 05:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Honestly, can't Trump just resign in a blast of sour grapes?  He can say that he had the best ever plan to fix America after the 2020 election but now we won't get to have it because people who hate him because he's awesome wouldn't stop their petty quest?  Then he can create his own news network which is the only one anyone can actually trust and make more money.

He comes off looking like a persecuted genius and he gets even more rich.  Everyone wins.

(09-27-2019, 05:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Naw. I see him staying with the theme and continuing with the Hitler routine until the bitter end.

BTW - Where is that Presidential bunker at?