(09-27-2019, 05:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: These were back-to-back posts that occurred before you even got involved in the thread. After this point, the issue of the whistleblower obtaining the information through hearsay was never brought up again, as far as I can recall.



Notice that immediately upon learning new information, I corrected my statement.

Now, when we actually read the complaint, the idea that the whistleblower only knew of this through hearsay and not through their normal course of work seems to be inaccurate. Page 1 of the report indicates that this information was relayed to them "in the course of official interagency business." This was done because "[i]t is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis." So it was a part of their normal activities within their government role. On page 3 we learn that the whistleblower "was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call." This means that they had been provided with the readout of the call before making their report. This is not hearsay. They had the primary source documentation.

To sum up: it wasn't entirely hearsay like the White House tried to claim, it was information obtained through the normal employment activities of the whistleblower, and you're trying to be a martyr for something you had no part in.

(09-27-2019, 05:44 PM)Synric Wrote: Donald Trump is going to be the very first impeached President relected...lol.

(09-27-2019, 12:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not obsessing. Just wanted to point I that I'd heard early in the process the Whistleblower was going on 2nd hand info and obviously he/she was. It does add a second layer to the information. Seems some may be obsessing over ways to say that he/she gained the information otherwise. Would it be less "obsessive' if I said second-hand information instead of hearsay?

I have commended the whistleblower for coming forward and am sure his/her second hand information can be verified. Perhaps your comments should be directed toward a Trump supporter who is obsessing over what the echo chamber has convinced them of.

Quote:Ukraine’s prosecutor says there is no probe into Biden

Quote:MOSCOW — Ukraine’s top anti-corruption official said Friday his agency hasn’t investigated former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden or his son as U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested.

Trump’s call on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate his political rival Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on the board of directors of an energy company in Ukraine, has triggered a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump in the U.S. Congress.

Trump alleged that the Biden family inappropriately benefited from their ties to Ukraine and he pushed Zelenskiy to investigate the case during the July 25 call that is now the focus of the impeachment probe.

Nazar Kholodnitskiy, the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, said in an interview with NV radio that Biden and his son weren’t the subject of any investigation.

Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma at the same time as his father was leading the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Kyiv. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son.

Kholodnitskiy said in the radio interview that an earlier probe into Burisma was closed for lack of evidence in 2017, but a court in the Ukrainian capital overruled the move the following year. Despite the court’s ruling, the case has remained on hold and no investigative actions have been taken since then.

He emphasized that there was no mention of Biden or his son in the Burisma case, which was focused broadly to look into the alleged abuse of power by officials in Ukraine’s Ministry of Ecology.

Asked if Ukrainian prosecutors could question Biden or his son, Kholodnitskiy said that to do so they would need to see information that would signal wrongdoing on their part.

“As of now, there is nothing there,” he said. “If it comes up, measures will be taken to check the information.”

The rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelenskiy released by the White House on Wednesday shows that Trump urged Ukraine to “look into” Biden.

READ MORE: Read the full White House notes describing Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president

In the call, Zelenskiy appears to make an effort to stay in Trump’s good graces, telling him at least twice that he is “absolutely right,” but he told reporters this week that he didn’t feel pushed, emphasizing that “no one can pressure me.” He also sought to play down the situation involving Biden and his son’s activities in Ukraine, calling it just one of “many cases that I talk about with leaders of other countries.”

The political furor has come as a severe test for Zelenskiy, a comedian without any political experience who was elected in a landslide on promises to uproot the country’s endemic corruption and end fighting with Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine’s east.

The publication of the call, in which the presidents made critical comments about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, has drawn acerbic comments from Russian officials and lawmakers.

“We are waiting for the party to continue,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “Let them publish transcripts of conversations between NATO allies. It would also be useful to publish minutes of closed meetings at the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon. Put it all on air!”

Zakharova also scoffed at Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to open an impeachment inquiry based on the call.

“Is it the Democrats’ job to make a laughing stock of the United States?” she said. “It’s exactly what Ms. Pelosi has done to Congress, the White House and other state institutions.”

Asked if Moscow is worried that the White House could similarly publish transcripts of Trump’s calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “we would like to hope that it wouldn’t come to that in our relations, which are already troubled by a lot of problems.”

Speaking in a conference call with reporters, he emphasized that the publication of the Trump-Zelenskiy call is an internal U.S. issue, but added that it was “quite unusual” to release a confidential call between leaders.

“The materials related to conversations between heads of states are usually classified according to normal international practice,” he said.

(09-27-2019, 06:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You were a scout. Your job was to provide intel to the commander. The commander acted upon your intel. Is it safe to say your commander acted upon hearsay or second hand info?

(09-27-2019, 06:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You were a scout. Your job was to provide intel to the commander. The commander acted upon your intel. Is it safe to say your commander acted upon hearsay or second hand info?

(09-27-2019, 08:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No the people who told the whistleblower  would be the scouts. No reason to use second hand information if you can hear from the original people. I have no problem using the whistleblower’s report as a launching point, but I would have a big problem using it as actual evidence.

(09-27-2019, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've already said we can call it second hand information if the term hearsay bothers people. I don't care what the White House claims. 

(09-27-2019, 09:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

(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

Quote:Trump's envoy to Ukraine resigns amid fallout from whistleblower complaint
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 1 Min AgoCNBC.com

• President Donald Trump's special representative for Ukraine resigned on Friday, two sources told NBC News.
• A whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community, released publicly on Thursday, described Volker as trying to "contain the damage" from efforts by Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to press Ukraine to investigate Democrats.
• Volker, who had served in the position on a part-time, unpaid basis since 2017, had sought to help Ukraine's government resolve its confrontation with Russia-sponsored separatists.
  

Ambassador Kurt Volker has resigned as President Donald Trump's special representative for Ukraine, NBC News confirmed Friday, citing two people with knowledge of the matter.



Volker has served in the special representative role since 2017 on part-time basis, in an effort to help Ukraine's government resolve a years-long confrontation with separatists in the country who are sponsored by Russia.


On Thursday, a whistleblower complaint from within the intelligence community became public, and in it Volker was described as trying to "contain the damage" from efforts by Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to press Ukraine to investigate Democrats.


One of the sources who spoke to NBC News said that stepping down as special representative will allow Volker to be freer in what he can say should he be called to testify before Congress about the Trump administration and Ukraine.

That source said Volker has emphasized to his colleagues at his other ventures outside the government that he was trying to build a firewall between his government work and his other work, in order to protect the latter.


Neither Volker nor the State Department responded to requests from NBC News for comment.


Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, who are conducting an impeachment investigation of Trump, have sought testimony from Volker relating to a July 25 phone call in which Trump encouraged Ukraine's president to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, Reuters reported.


Volker's resignation was first reported by the State Press, a student-run publication at Arizona State University.

(09-27-2019, 07:45 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ukraines-prosecutor-says-there-is-no-probe-into-biden?fbclid=IwAR0dElXjQF3gz_R4ojVSv0NJPzUP88TJP1bF4CFwFvL_-OtAvx6wvCOJycA

The publication of the call, in which the presidents made critical comments about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, has drawn acerbic comments from Russian officials and lawmakers.


“We are waiting for the party to continue,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “Let them publish transcripts of conversations between NATO allies. It would also be useful to publish minutes of closed meetings at the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon. Put it all on air!”

Zakharova also scoffed at Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to open an impeachment inquiry based on the call.

“Is it the Democrats’ job to make a laughing stock of the United States?” she said. “It’s exactly what Ms. Pelosi has done to Congress, the White House and other state institutions.”

(09-27-2019, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well the acting a martyr point was about you being full of it. The rest of it was pointing out that when you read the report you can see that the whistleblower had access to and read the transcript for himself before making the report. While he included the concerns of others in the IC, he had his own concerns from the primary source material of the phone call.

But continue to dismiss these facts as "BS" if you so choose. It wont be surprising.

(09-27-2019, 11:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Not just the Republicans and Fox backing Trump.

Somebody is nervous; maybe transcripts of Putin-Trump calls will become public?

(09-27-2019, 08:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it is. That's what he did. He had no way of verifying my information other than trusting the source. It appears this whistleblower did the same and I applaud him/her

(09-28-2019, 12:12 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: My biggest concern is the lack of concern in some parties over foreign intervention in our country. This is taken as a joke among some. Do they not realize where this ultimately goes? Are the lessons of history lost?

(09-27-2019, 08:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No the people who told the whistleblower would be the scouts. No reason to use second hand information if you can hear from the original people. I have no problem using the whistleblower’s report as a launching point, but I would have a big problem using it as actual evidence.