+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump (/Thread-Whistle-Blower%E2%80%99s-Complaint-Is-Said-to-Involve-Multiple-Acts-by-Trump)
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 10-29-2019
Ruh roh.
EU Amb. Gordon Sondland now tells Congress that there was a quid pro quo involved with Ukraine after previously denying it, Wall Street Journal reports. https://t.co/S8js2Zww25
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) October 29, 2019
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 10-29-2019
(10-29-2019, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: The "left" rep is never as firm as the guy on the right.
Rich Lowry is a very intelligent and frustrating man, to me. He toes the party line too much for my liking, but he's a quick one.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 10-30-2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7632107/John-Bolton-evidence-closed-door-impeachment-hearing-week.html
Quote:John Bolton will testify in Donald Trump's impeachment inquiry next week as Democrats will look for the former national security adviser to burn the president in his deposition.
Bolton will testify on next Thursday, according to a The New York Times reporter.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 10-31-2019
I'm listening to the House hearings on the procedure vote. It's all very prim and proper and then Gym Jordan gets to talk.
He's told three lies in the first two minutes and is the only one yelling and ranting.
He's sad and I'm sad he gets votes.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 10-31-2019
I really need to invest in a stronger Irony Meter...these guys keep breaking it.
NUNES: "What we're seeing among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee down in the SCIF right now is like a cult. These are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish conspiracy theory to another. And the media are the cult followers." pic.twitter.com/Y2roq9qKPN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2019
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - BmorePat87 - 10-31-2019
(10-30-2019, 05:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7632107/John-Bolton-evidence-closed-door-impeachment-hearing-week.html
The year is 2019 and John Bolton will be testifying that he thinks the foreign policy of a Republican President is potentially unlawful.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Dill - 10-31-2019
(10-31-2019, 11:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: I really need to invest in a stronger Irony Meter...these guys keep breaking it.
NUNES: "What we're seeing among Democrats on the Intelligence Committee down in the SCIF right now is like a cult. These are a group of people loyally following their leader as he bounces from one outlandish conspiracy theory to another. And the media are the cult followers." pic.twitter.com/Y2roq9qKPN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2019
Mirror image. "Whatever they say, we say! That's you but what am I?"
Like watching Fox.
If all day the real news is about how chaotic the WH is and how Trump advisors are turning on each other and more details pour in about about Trump's abuse of government power for partisan purposes (Ukraine), Fox commentators go on and on about how chaotic the press coverage is with reporters unable to get their story right and Dems fighting each other and how the intestigation into Obama's abuse of government power (FISA warrants) is finally gaining steam--while marveling at how well run the WH is rum.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-04-2019
I have a question for people who are NOT Trump supporters/defenders but who like to, I dunno, defend(?) him against "unfair attacks" in virtually every thread. And this relates to this thread.
DJT has called, repeatedly and loudly, for the whistleblower to be named. He is demanding to be able to know who it is.
Are you okay with that? Why or why not?
Is the most powerful man in America yelling into microphones that it was be a "public service" to out the whistleblower against him something worth defending?
Thank you for your time and consideration on this subject.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Goalpost - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have a question for people who are NOT Trump supporters/defenders but who like to, I dunno, defend(?) him against "unfair attacks" in virtually every thread. And this relates to this thread.
DJT has called, repeatedly and loudly, for the whistleblower to be named. He is demanding to be able to know who it is.
Are you okay with that? Why or why not?
Is the most powerful man in America yelling into microphones that it was be a "public service" to out the whistleblower against him something worth defending?
Thank you for your time and consideration on this subject.
The whistle blower is already known. They are just not announcing his name. He has links to both Biden and Brennan.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 11:55 AM)Goalpost Wrote: The whistle blower is already known. They are just not announcing his name. He has links to both Biden and Brennan.
Who knows this? The only person saying it is Trump so if he knows why is he still asking? (Hint: I know why.)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whistleblowers-lawyers-client-worked-political-candidate/story?id=66172472
Quote:The lawyers representing a whistleblower whose complaint has plunged President Donald Trump into impeachment proceedings describe the person as a civil servant who has never worked for or advised any political candidate, campaign or party.
The statement, released late Wednesday, was an unusual step by lawyers Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid who have been reluctant to provide any information that might identify their client. The person is protected from retaliation under anti-corruption laws, but Trump has said he has the right to meet his accuser.
"The Whistleblower has ties to one of my DEMOCRAT OPPONENTS," Trump tweeted on Wednesday. "Why does the ICIG allow this scam to continue?
The whistleblower's lawyers say that is not true.
Moreover you did not answer the question as posed: Is it Ok for Trump to want the whistleblower's identity revealed?
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-04-2019
As predicted bu\y a lot of people smarter than me the latest defense of DJT is "yeah, we said he never did it but he did it but it's not illegal or wrong."
False stories are being reported that a few Republican Senators are saying that President Trump may have done a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not an impeachable event. Perhaps so, but read the transcript, there is no quid pro quo!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 4, 2019
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - CJD - 11-04-2019
We're so far past the whistle blower and the "transcript" I think it's odd that they keep being brought up (mostly by Republicans). We now have Taylor's testimony, which gave a step by step walkthrough of the events that led up to the phone call and eventual release of the money (of which there were multiple allegations of quid pro quo completely separate from the phone call). Then we had Vindman's testimony that the "transcript" had key portions missing and that there was significant evidence of a quid pro quo. And then we had the news that Sondland actually did say there was a quid pro quo and that he was merely parroting Trump when he said that the "president had been clear" in that infamous text to Taylor.
And now we have Morrison's testimony, where he says that "the "substance" of his conversations recalled by William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was "accurate," according to his prepared remarks and people familiar with Morrison's testimony" and that Morrison "verified that Trump's envoy to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, conveyed to a Ukrainian official that the military aid would be released if the country investigated an energy firm linked to the son of former Vice President Joe Biden. Morrison announced his resignation the night before his testimony."
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/nov/01/trump-aide-verifies-key-testimony-20191/
Of course, Trump supporters only listened to one section of his testimony, in which he said he personally did not believe anything illegal had occurred (despite corroborating two separate accounts regarding the illegality of Trump's actions). He kind of had to say that, since he was the one who ignored Vindman's requests to edit the "transcript" before it was locked away in that private server, despite not having any classified information in it.
But yea, that one sentence in the 8 hour interview was a win for Trump, I guess XD.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - BmorePat87 - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have a question for people who are NOT Trump supporters/defenders but who like to, I dunno, defend(?) him against "unfair attacks" in virtually every thread. And this relates to this thread.
Dude, they abandoned this thread weeks ago. Nothing about what he did can be defended. They can't actually defend the GOP voting against the transparency they begged for or Trump digger himself a deeper hole.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - GMDino - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 01:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Dude, they abandoned this thread weeks ago. Nothing about what he did can be defended. They can't actually defend the GOP voting against the transparency they begged for or Trump digger himself a deeper hole.
Ah! My bad.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have a question for people who are NOT Trump supporters/defenders but who like to, I dunno, defend(?) him against "unfair attacks" in virtually every thread. And this relates to this thread.
DJT has called, repeatedly and loudly, for the whistleblower to be named. He is demanding to be able to know who it is.
Are you okay with that? Why or why not?
Is the most powerful man in America yelling into microphones that it was be a "public service" to out the whistleblower against him something worth defending?
Thank you for your time and consideration on this subject.
I don't know if this was intentionally directed at anyone, but you might as well have tagged me in this. I don't think I've said anything on this subject at all on this board (or anywhere). It started at all as he said/she said so I couldn't really make an opinion either way. It seemed reasonable to wait for evidence and facts instead of the initially breaking news story. No point in being outraged over the latest history changing story only to have it reacted the next day. I think I can answer this question without forming I complete opinion on the whole situation - as I haven't done that yet.
The whistle blowers report was the definition of hearsay. He had no evidence, but heard through the grapevine something happened. Should that give you official whistleblower status is another debate I guess, but in this case he is being treated as a whistle blower. Whether he gets the official status or not - I'm okay with someone speaking up if they think something is wrong even if they don't have the evidence. You shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden to be able to say something. It's just a matter of what constitutes an official whistleblower is what I'm getting at here.
I think the evidence should speak for itself and whistle blowers should not have to come forward publicly. I stand by that. The problem is what evidence is this whistleblower standing by? He's standing behind a rumor that accuses Trump of wrongdoing.
If the whistle blower chooses to say nothing more, I don't think he should have to be identified. If he testifies in any capacity to investigators, then his words have to be able to be cross-examined. Evidence that can be verified wouldn't require the person presenting to be cross-examined, but he hasn't presented any.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 03:18 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The whistle blowers report was the definition of hearsay. He had no evidence, but heard through the grapevine something happened. Should that give you official whistleblower status is another debate I guess, but in this case he is being treated as a whistle blower. Whether he gets the official status or not - I'm okay with someone speaking up if they think something is wrong even if they don't have the evidence. You shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden to be able to say something. It's just a matter of what constitutes an official whistleblower is what I'm getting at here.
This is an argument I have disagreed with from the onset. According to the whitleblower's statement, he had received a readout of the phone call that initiated his complaint. That is evidence and takes it beyond hearsay. The whole "hearsay" talking point is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the whole situation.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 03:18 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't know if this was intentionally directed at anyone, but you might as well have tagged me in this. I don't think I've said anything on this subject at all on this board (or anywhere). It started at all as he said/she said so I couldn't really make an opinion either way. It seemed reasonable to wait for evidence and facts instead of the initially breaking news story. No point in being outraged over the latest history changing story only to have it reacted the next day. I think I can answer this question without forming I complete opinion on the whole situation - as I haven't done that yet.
The whistle blowers report was the definition of hearsay. He had no evidence, but heard through the grapevine something happened. Should that give you official whistleblower status is another debate I guess, but in this case he is being treated as a whistle blower. Whether he gets the official status or not - I'm okay with someone speaking up if they think something is wrong even if they don't have the evidence. You shouldn't have to go full blown Snowden to be able to say something. It's just a matter of what constitutes an official whistleblower is what I'm getting at here.
I think the evidence should speak for itself and whistle blowers should not have to come forward publicly. I stand by that. The problem is what evidence is this whistleblower standing by? He's standing behind a rumor that accuses Trump of wrongdoing.
If the whistle blower chooses to say nothing more, I don't think he should have to be identified. If he testifies in any capacity to investigators, then his words have to be able to be cross-examined. Evidence that can be verified wouldn't require the person presenting to be cross-examined, but he hasn't presented any.
Is it illegal for a politician to solicit the help of a foreign government with an election? Yes or no.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - Belsnickel - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 03:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it illegal for a politician to solicit the help of a foreign government with an election? Yes or no.
Not just government, any foreign entity.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - michaelsean - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have a question for people who are NOT Trump supporters/defenders but who like to, I dunno, defend(?) him against "unfair attacks" in virtually every thread. And this relates to this thread.
DJT has called, repeatedly and loudly, for the whistleblower to be named. He is demanding to be able to know who it is.
Are you okay with that? Why or why not?
Is the most powerful man in America yelling into microphones that it was be a "public service" to out the whistleblower against him something worth defending?
Thank you for your time and consideration on this subject.
I would say if they rely upon him/her for evidence, then yes. If they just use the whistle blower as a starting point and develop their own evidence (which it looks like they have) then no.
RE: Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump - 6andcounting - 11-04-2019
(11-04-2019, 03:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is an argument I have disagreed with from the onset. According to the whitleblower's statement, he had received a readout of the phone call that initiated his complaint. That is evidence and takes it beyond hearsay. The whole "hearsay" talking point is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss the whole situation.
The whistleblowers report didn't come from the readout. It based around the 12 or so people who directly listened into the call. The whistleblower admits he wasn't one of those people.