Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]40740[/ATTACH]

    You'd never in a million years demand the same treatment for Trump. You've already prejudged him and found him guilty and now want to find evidence to support it. In fact, it looks like you don't even want to bother with evidence. Your blinding hatred appears to be all you need.
    There is simply no comparison. Trump is the person committing the crimes being reported. In any case like this, you try to figure out if the accusation has merit. In this case it did. And you really dont seem to have a very good grasp of what hatred is. Being against a president strong arming an ally is not hatred.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      It was a factual accounting of the goings on rogue, as has been confirmed. That is why whistleblower laws exist, to protect people with knowledge of crimes so they can report them without fear of retribution.

      I am bit curious what substantive elements of the complaint you think hasn't been shown true. And by substantive, please don't tell me it was the color of someones shoes, or who had lunch with someone. Substantive elements.
      It was inaccurate gossip as the transcript has shown.

      The "whistleblower" claimed that Trump was obsessed with Biden bringing him up over and over something like seven or eight times whereas in reality Trump brought him up only once near the end of the conversation and almost as an afterthought.

      Moreover, the transcript clearly shows that the claim that Trump demanded that Zelensky "dig up some dirt" on Biden is not even remotely based on reality.

      And the claim that Trump told Zelensky that he wouldn't get any aide unless he complied with this never made demand is likewise nothing short of a falsehood.

      Those are just three of the myriad of major inaccuracies that plague the supposed whistleblower's story[1] -- which would be more than sufficient to get him branded as being an unreliable witness that no lawyer would want to go near in any court of law. Well at least lawyers who would use him as a witness since those cross-examining him would regard him as a God send and would be chomping at the bit in anticipation of tearing him to shreds.






      1. I hesitate at calling them deliberate lies only because that implies that Ciaramella had actual knowledge of the call which he did not have. All he had was second and third hand gossip.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        There is simply no comparison. Trump is the person committing the crimes being reported. In any case like this, you try to figure out if the accusation has merit. In this case it did. And you really dont seem to have a very good grasp of what hatred is. Being against a president strong arming an ally is not hatred.
        As I said

        You'd never in a million years demand the same treatment for Trump


        Your hatred blinds you too much.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          As I said

          You'd never in a million years demand the same treatment for Trump
          Why would I give Trump the benefit of the doubt in this when the evidence is clear that is what he did?

          Your hatred blinds you too much.
          Hatred - again you use that word, but clearly - you do not know what it means. I am against the wrong things Trump has done and is doing. That is not hatred. Hatred is something quite different.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            It was inaccurate gossip as the transcript has shown.
            I think that is putting it too lightly. It wasn't just inaccurate gossip but a false report created in concert with Adam Schiff who is also the person overseeing the hearings, which creates a huge conflict of interest.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I think that is putting it too lightly. It wasn't just inaccurate gossip but a false report created in concert with Adam Schiff who is also the person overseeing the hearings, which creates a huge conflict of interest.
              I think the reason that he won't let Republicans call witnesses is because he knows he would get called. As he should. The man belongs on the witness stand not presiding over the proceedings.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I think the reason that he won't let Republicans call witnesses is because he knows he would get called. As he should. The man belongs on the witness stand not presiding over the proceedings.
                In a court of law, it's generally accepted that a witness who will be called to testify can't even be inside the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. Let alone, be the judge.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  It was inaccurate gossip as the transcript has shown.

                  The "whistleblower" claimed that Trump was obsessed with Biden bringing him up over and over something like seven or eight times whereas in reality Trump brought him up only once near the end of the conversation and almost as an afterthought.

                  Moreover, the transcript clearly shows that the claim that Trump demanded that Zelensky "dig up some dirt" on Biden is not even remotely based on reality.

                  And the claim that Trump told Zelensky that he wouldn't get any aide unless he complied with this never made demand is likewise nothing short of a falsehood.

                  Those are just three of the myriad of major inaccuracies that plague the supposed whistleblower's story[1] -- which would be more than sufficient to get him branded as being an unreliable witness that no lawyer would want to go near in any court of law. Well at least lawyers who would use him as a witness since those cross-examining him would regard him as a God send and would be chomping at the bit in anticipation of tearing him to shreds.






                  1. I hesitate at calling them deliberate lies only because that implies that Ciaramella had actual knowledge of the call which he did not have. All he had was second and third hand gossip.


                  Vindman has testified that the transcript is missing some key points, specifically the parts where they talk about Biden and Burisma. Vindman also explained that the transcript was compiled by note takers, as the call was not recorded, of which he was one.

                  So its alleged that the transcript is neither verbatim or complete. Whether this is true or made up would be something that a trial would determine. However, this is only one component to the claim. That Trump demanded the investigation for aid didn't start and end with this phone call and the whistleblowers report details dates and events that have been corroborated by multiple witness testimonies.

                  The main fact, not contested and central to this claim, is that the aid was held up under instructions from Trump who can't seem to remember why.

                  Any prosecutor would tell you that this is more than enough to warrant an investigation. 'Smoking gun' type of evidence is pretty rare, most crimes are established by linking one piece of circumstantial evidence to another, similar to how scientific experiments link together to support scientific theories, until theres only one reasonable explanation to account for everything. Before complaining about lack of evidence to convict remember that the investigation is the process to gather the evidence!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    However, if the "informant" coordinated with members of the police department to plant a body in order to frame an innocent man, and the informant's lawyer tweeted a message two-years previously that "The frame job has begun", then it's a whole different matter.
                    Not at all. The alleged motives or bias's of the whistle blower are irrelevant given that the substance of his revelations have proven accurate and have been substantiated by numerous witnesses.

                    False. That was his presumption, and presumptions are not evidence. Furthermore, he told Bill Taylor in a text message at the time that "the President was crystal clear, no quid pro quo's of any kind."
                    No. “The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, not only revised his testimony to describe an explicit quid pro quo but acknowledged that he had been the messenger of it”.

                    https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                      Not at all. The alleged motives or bias's of the whistle blower are irrelevant given that the substance of his revelations have proven accurate and have been substantiated by numerous witnesses.



                      No. “The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, not only revised his testimony to describe an explicit quid pro quo but acknowledged that he had been the messenger of it”.

                      https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
                      False. He said he presumed it, but he can presume whatever he wants. That doesn't make it a fact. Also, his contemporaneous communication with Bill Taylor emphasized that the President was "crystal clear" that there was to be no quid pro quo.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                        Vindman has testified that the transcript is missing some key points, specifically the parts where they talk about Biden and Burisma. Vindman also explained that the transcript was compiled by note takers, as the call was not recorded, of which he was one.

                        So its alleged that the transcript is neither verbatim or complete. Whether this is true or made up would be something that a trial would determine. However, this is only one component to the claim. That Trump demanded the investigation for aid didn't start and end with this phone call and the whistleblowers report details dates and events that have been corroborated by multiple witness testimonies.

                        The main fact, not contested and central to this claim, is that the aid was held up under instructions from Trump who can't seem to remember why.

                        Any prosecutor would tell you that this is more than enough to warrant an investigation. 'Smoking gun' type of evidence is pretty rare, most crimes are established by linking one piece of circumstantial evidence to another, similar to how scientific experiments link together to support scientific theories, until theres only one reasonable explanation to account for everything. Before complaining about lack of evidence to convict remember that the investigation is the process to gather the evidence!
                        Vindman is the only one to claim that there are omissions in the official transcript, and it's particularly notable that others with direct knowledge of the phonecall apparently rejected his attempted "corrections". Furthermore, he testified that the overall transcript is accurate despite the absence of the one or two words he unconvincingly claims were missing (he said something to the effect of "If you've read the transcript, then you know what was said during the phonecall.").

                        Another fact that has never been contested is that nobody in the Ukrainian government knew that the military aid had been temporarily suspended, meaning it would have been impossible to use it as leverage, and they took no special action to have it restored.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Why would I give Trump the benefit of the doubt in this when the evidence is clear that is what he did?
                          What evidence? So far All the Democrats have is third hand information based on peoples feelings or peoples feelings and opinions, presumptions on what was going on.

                          Hatred - again you use that word, but clearly - you do not know what it means. I am against the wrong things Trump has done and is doing. That is not hatred. Hatred is something quite different.
                          When someone accepts non evidence as evidence that wrong has been done because of what the person did in the past rather then wait for real evidence; or even hand waves the real evidence away presuming they know what a person really thinks happened but is afraid to say it, Is in my OPINION their showing hatred towards the person not what he's done.

                          Oxmix, When have you ever acknowledged the good things trump has done without qualifying with but he's done this evil thing even if there is no basis to think he did it or that it was done with malice in his mind*? so please show me. show me my opinion is wrong about your bias being so bad agasint trump that you let it color your mind on what evil is.



                          *and no I'm not saying that Trump hasn't done things I think are wrong I'm just saying I know human beings are not perfect and not all the things you say Trump did are things.
                          1. he actually did
                          or
                          2 wrong.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            False. He said he presumed it, but he can presume whatever he wants. That doesn't make it a fact. Also, his contemporaneous communication with Bill Taylor emphasized that the President was "crystal clear" that there was to be no quid pro quo.
                            No. Gordon Sondland, has revised his testimony and has described an explicit quid pro quo. “Sondland admitted that he had told one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers that continuing to receive the U.S. aid was tied to their public announcement of two investigations sought by Trump”.

                            https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              False. He said he presumed it, but he can presume whatever he wants. That doesn't make it a fact. Also, his contemporaneous communication with Bill Taylor emphasized that the President was "crystal clear" that there was to be no quid pro quo.
                              And it was only after being told over and over by the MSM that it was quid pro quo that he suddenly decided "golly gee, they know better than me. It musta been quid pro quo"
                              Last edited by rogue06; 11-09-2019, 02:21 AM.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                                Vindman has testified that the transcript is missing some key points, specifically the parts where they talk about Biden and Burisma. Vindman also explained that the transcript was compiled by note takers, as the call was not recorded, of which he was one.

                                So its alleged that the transcript is neither verbatim or complete. Whether this is true or made up would be something that a trial would determine. However, this is only one component to the claim. That Trump demanded the investigation for aid didn't start and end with this phone call and the whistleblowers report details dates and events that have been corroborated by multiple witness testimonies.

                                The main fact, not contested and central to this claim, is that the aid was held up under instructions from Trump who can't seem to remember why.

                                Any prosecutor would tell you that this is more than enough to warrant an investigation. 'Smoking gun' type of evidence is pretty rare, most crimes are established by linking one piece of circumstantial evidence to another, similar to how scientific experiments link together to support scientific theories, until theres only one reasonable explanation to account for everything. Before complaining about lack of evidence to convict remember that the investigation is the process to gather the evidence!
                                Nobody else seems to remember what Vindman does which is awfully strange don't you think? Moreover even the anti-Trump New York Times conceded that his additions didn't change anything.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X