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 Mountain Man View Post
    Schiff is stuck on this one because he's also trying to skate out from under the fact that he coordinated with Ciaramella to draft the "whistle blower" complaint, so he's trying to maintain an air of plausible denial by claiming, unconvincingly, that he doesn't know the guy.
    Just wait til he gets called by the Senate to testify under oath.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • So, Schiff could be outright lying about not knowing the alleged whistle blower's identity.... and he almost CERTAINLY is....

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Really simple yes or no question - do you honestly believe that Schiff does not know who the alleged whistle blower is?
      But it gets handwaved away because he's vigorously prosecuting Trump...

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Does it matter given that the whistle-blower's complaints have been corroborated by numerous people. Besides he/she is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Doesn't matter. But it is unlikely he does not know....
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Couldn't care less if he does or not, since it has nothing to do with the evidence uncovered.
      I guess it's only bad when Republicans lie?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        If he knows, and he's ADAMantly declaring he doesn't, then he's lying - but that's probably OK, too, since he's your guy. So that doesn't surprise me at all.
        No, the fact is that it doesn't matter and he has a responsibility by law to protect the whistleblower. You need to stop swallowing the irrelevant stuff your favorite propagandists are feeding you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Doesn't matter? SERIOUSLY???? Jim, you KNOW that he knows. There's no way he can NOT know. He is flat out lying about this, and everybody knows it.

          But it "doesn't matter"?

          I guess that's OK, though - he hates Trump.
          And you take vigorous exception to me 'divining' your moods and motives, yet look at your last statement ...

          My dismissal of the issue has nothing to do with 'he hates trump'. It has to do with my agreement with the idea that the whistle blower needs to be protected against GOP and POTUS reprisal, and he is right not to reveal his identity if he knows it (as in knows officially as opposed to just having seen what the rumor is). If I was him I would not lie about knowing who it is (assuming he is lying) but IMHO he would not be wrong if he did.
          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
            So you would smear me?
            What is it with you and this sudden obsession with accusing people of engaging in a "smear"?

            Edit: Ah, well, it looks like you quickly edited your post in the time it took me to respond, so apparently even you recognize that you were starting to go little over the top.
            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 Cow Poke View Post
              I guess it's only bad when Republicans lie?
              You are assuming he is lying, because that's what you've been told. You have no clue, and it gets hand waved away because it's irrelevant.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                So, Schiff could be outright lying about not knowing the alleged whistle blower's identity.... and he almost CERTAINLY is....



                But it gets handwaved away because he's vigorously prosecuting Trump...





                I guess it's only bad when Republicans lie?
                I guess you would tell the cartel you knew where the fellow they were trying to kill was hiding? And you would accuse someone that lied about it of being a liar and equal to the lies of the cartel members seeking to kill the fellow?
                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 JimL View Post
                  You are assuming he is lying,
                  Yes, I am, because, like Ox said "it is unlikely he does not know...."

                  because that's what you've been told. You have no clue,
                  It would be nearly impossible for Schiff not to know, and if he knows, he's lying when he says he does not.

                  and it gets hand waved away because it's irrelevant.
                  Like I said - he's a Democrat, so, yeah, he gets a pass for lying.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    What is it with you and this sudden obsession with accusing people of engaging in a "smear"?

                    Edit: Ah, well, it looks like you quickly edited your post in the time it took me to respond, so apparently even you recognize that you were starting to go little over the top.
                    I knew there was a better, more accurate way to express what I was noticing - yes.
                    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
                      I guess you would tell the cartel you knew where the fellow they were trying to kill was hiding? And you would accuse someone that lied about it of being a liar and equal to the lies of the cartel members seeking to kill the fellow?
                      Oh, for crying out loud. You're SERIOUSLY going to claim that Schiff can't just honestly say "It is my duty to protect the identity of the witness" (even though that's a stretch) when everybody KNOWS who the whistle blower is? Are you that desperate to defend Schiff that you'd stoop to this nonsense?
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        No, the fact is that it doesn't matter and he has a responsibility by law to protect the whistleblower.
                        Not his identity - that's just liberal talking points.

                        You need to stop swallowing the irrelevant stuff your favorite propagandists are feeding you.
                        If Schiff knows the identity of the alleged whistle blower, and repeatedly denies knowing it, he's a serial liar. But, yeah, I get it --- he's a Democrat, so that's OK.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                          You are assuming [Schiff] is lying...
                          Of course he's lying. He at first claimed that he had no contact with the whistle blower whatsoever, and then he admitted that the whistle blower actually had been in contact with his office but that he knew nothing about it -- as if his staff wouldn't have told him that a CIA operative was looking to dish dirt on Trump and wanted help filling out the paperwork. Then there's the incident with Vindman's testimony...

                          Republicans: "Who did you talk to about the phone call?"
                          Vindman: "I spoke with two people: Kent, and someone in the CIA named-"
                          Schiff: "Don't say the whistle blower's name!"

                          Which begs he question: How did Schiff know who's name Vindman was about to reveal?
                          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
                            And you take vigorous exception to me 'divining' your moods and motives, yet look at your last statement ...
                            So clarify, please.... if Schiff knows the identity, and he repeatedly claims he does not, he's lying. Is that acceptable to you?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The narrative that hoax blower Eric Ciaramella needs to be protected from conservatives is rather ironic when you consider that it's liberals in general who tend to be intolerant and violent.

                              https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/scienc...chotic-traits/
                              https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-think-215114
                              https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...718-story.html
                              https://www.redstate.com/diary/nikit...heres-23-ways/
                              The best way to defeat the narrative that the whistleblower needs protection would be to stop attacking him and attempting to name him, especially in the interest of opening him up to further attack.

                              This ...

                              ... is arguing by weblink.


                              And they're not good links.

                              NYPost:
                              Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic

                              The story doesn't back up the headline, doesn't link to the paper or any of its citations, and doesn't link to the correction, a perfect storm of reasons not to get your science from Murdoch tabloids.
                              “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

                              In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.

                              And when the links are at least kinda good, they're not supportive.

                              Politico:
                              But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

                              Contradicting the thesis it's liberals we should watch out for, not conservatives, so I can't even say why you cited it, unless, well, who knows, maybe you didn't read your own links.

                              The Trib op/ed:
                              Albert Eisenberg is the former communications director for the Philadelphia Republican Party.

                              On the merits, it doesn't read as a balanced piece, and, after reading the bio sketch at the end, it's not hard to figure out why. Yeah, in Europe, G20 protesters, and G7 too, for that matter, regularly scuffle with police. I've seen some of that when they meet in the US, but never at European levels. But in comparison, even to the US protests of the G20 and G7, Eisenstein's examples of restricting speech — setting aside the begged question that Murray and Milo embrace conservative standards — don't measure up. It's not serious criticism; it's partisan smear.

                              Redstate:
                              DIARY / NIKITAS3 // Posted at 7:17 am on January 11, 2011 by Nikitas3

                              And this one is a listicle. By an anonymous author. Who can't write. #15 is going to make your blood boil!

                              Meanwhile ...

                              All of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report
                              By John Haltiwanger
                              Aug 5, 2019, 11:27 AM
                              The Anti-Defamation League's findings are consistent with other recent research on right-wing extremism in the US, which shows it's on the rise.

                              "The number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators rose over the past decade, more than quadrupling between 2016 and 2017," the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a November 2018 report. "The recent pipe bombs and the October 27, 2018, synagogue attack in Pittsburgh are symptomatic of this trend."

                              Correspondingly, a November 2018 analysis from The Washington Post on global terrorism data showed that far-right violence has been on the rise since President Donald Trump entered the White House.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                                The best way to defeat the narrative that the whistleblower needs protection would be to stop attacking him...
                                Who's attacking him?
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                219 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                294 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                387 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X