U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[candide]

10 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yes, once it came out that the ruled were changed such that the could expedite the “whistle blower’s” second-hand report they had to scramble...
 

 

You also missed that boat. Debunked already. Keep up with the news.

"THE FACTS: They're wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information"

https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/whistleblower-rules-changed-laws/

[RideJocky]

You also missed that boat. Debunked already. Keep up with the news.
"THE FACTS: They're wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information"
https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/whistleblower-rules-changed-laws/

Second hand info was always allowed, it just wasn’t fast-tracked.

So what do you think of Adam Shiff lying about meeting with the “whistle blower”?

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Second hand info was always allowed, it just wasn’t fast-tracked.

So what do you think of Adam Shiff lying about meeting with the “whistle blower”?

 

You're an ardent Trump supporter and you ask someone what they think about lying???

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

You also missed that boat. Debunked already. Keep up with the news.

"THE FACTS: They're wrong on multiple fronts. There was nothing improper in the submission of the whistleblower complaint. No whistleblower law was changed and nothing under that law requires the complaints to have first-hand information"

https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/whistleblower-rules-changed-laws/

I would argue that the Fortune article is pure garbage.  A very, very short, condensed article and doesn't touch on any of the facts which have been circulating for quite some time now in the public.  Since it so short it does not go into any depth whatsoever to counter with specifics any of the reports claiming otherwise.  Simply a "this is what we say and you can trust us" piece.

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I would argue that the Fortune article is pure garbage.  A very, very short, condensed article and doesn't touch on any of the facts which have been circulating for quite some time now in the public. 

When you say circulating in the public do you mean among right wingers on nutty conspiracy websites?

[BestB]

9 minutes ago, Becker said:

You're an ardent Trump supporter and you ask someone what they think about lying???

Well you keep saying Biden and Dems are clean, what does that say about you?

 

[Becker]

Just now, BestB said:

Well you keep saying Biden and Dems are clean, what does that say about you?

 

Oh no, not that one again...

[rabas]

1 hour ago, candide said:

He said "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

 

So he objected to someone who raised the issue of of withholding security assistance. If the subject of the previous call had been "on which side of the platform should we put the US flag?", he would not have said "it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

 

Sondland's strong rebuttal suggests otherwise. As if it wasn't the first time he was told his thinking was wrong.

 

Taylor: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,"

 

Sondland: "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text if you still have concerns".

 

"Back and forth", "still have" suggest repeating arguments. Still does not prove the true intent. Maybe 'dual use' policy initiatives. 

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Oh no, not that one again...

i know, must be fake or made up or have some good explanation, as per usual????

[Becker]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

i know, must be fake or made up or have some good explanation, as per usual????

And that explanation has been given so many times that only the extremely .......never mind.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

And that explanation has been given so many times that only the extremely .......never mind.

of course it has, i did not doubt it. Dems have an answer for everything

[chokrai]

7 minutes ago, Becker said:

Oh no, not that one again...

You better get used to it you are going to be seeing it every 20 minutes over the next year. Enjoy, I know I will.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, Becker said:

When you say circulating in the public do you mean among right wingers on nutty conspiracy websites?

Take the NYT piece where they only quoted Taylor.  Having Sondland's response was integral for understanding what Taylor had said because it put Taylor's quote into context.  But the NYT left it out.  Would have been bad for their narrative, ya think?

 

If you guys read only MSM think about how much they're not telling you because they don't want you to know it.

 

Nutty conspiracy websites.  LMAO.  You have no idea, Becker.

[Slip]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I would argue that the Fortune article is pure garbage.  A very, very short, condensed article and doesn't touch on any of the facts which have been circulating for quite some time now in the public.  Since it so short it does not go into any depth whatsoever to counter with specifics any of the reports claiming otherwise.  Simply a "this is what we say and you can trust us" piece.

Still more facts than that post of yours I responded to earlier.  See how that works? 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

Still more facts than that post of yours I responded to earlier.  See how that works? 

No.

[Sujo]

36 minutes ago, BestB said:

of course it has, i did not doubt it. Dems have an answer for everything

Yes, they are called facts. Something you know nothing about.

[candide]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I would argue that the Fortune article is pure garbage.  A very, very short, condensed article and doesn't touch on any of the facts which have been circulating for quite some time now in the public.  Since it so short it does not go into any depth whatsoever to counter with specifics any of the reports claiming otherwise.  Simply a "this is what we say and you can trust us" piece.

As post with no fact complaining about not enough facts....

 

If you want more details, you can read it in the following article, from which I provide a quote. The article also links the official IG statement.

In a statement issued late Monday afternoon, the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) said that the form submitted by the whistleblower on August 12, 2019, was the same one the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018. The statement reiterated the fact that having firsthand knowledge of the event has never been required in order to submit a whistleblower complaint. "Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute."

"In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant...need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-complaint-conspiracy-fact-check/index.html

[Sujo]

39 minutes ago, chokrai said:

You better get used to it you are going to be seeing it every 20 minutes over the next year. Enjoy, I know I will.

Yes those pesky facts that we have to repeat ad nauseum. Yet you still dont understand them.

 

reduce the facts to every 10 minutes and its still not enough time for trolls.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Yes, they are called facts. Something you know nothing about.

Well there are always these ...

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well there are always these ...

 

 

I do not totally discount everything Illiberals say and believe.

 

Kellyanne Conway has spilled a secret and alerted us all  to the risks posed to our privacy by the ‘Deep State’ watching us via our microwave ovens 

 

I’ve since draped a tea towel

over ours whenever it’s not in use just in case.

 

I doubt she’s right but I’m taking no chances.

 

 

[BestB]

23 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes, they are called facts. Something you know nothing about.

Yes, Schiff is good at presenting "facts" and when caught lying, turns out he did not express himself properly, but the lying becomes a fact just wrongly expressed????

[Opl]

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Take the NYT piece where they only quoted Taylor.  Having Sondland's response was integral for understanding what Taylor had said because it put Taylor's quote into context.  But the NYT left it out.  Would have been bad for their narrative, ya think?

 

If you guys read only MSM think about how much they're not telling you because they don't want you to know it.

 

Nutty conspiracy websites.  LMAO.  You have no idea, Becker.

believe only what Trump wants you to think , nothing is  questionable, everything is "crystal clear"      

[Jack100]

I fear for my media stock prices  if Trump leaves the scene ...who  can  ever replace him?

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, Jack100 said:

I fear for my media stock prices  if Trump leaves the scene ...who  can  ever replace him?

That sounds like a 45 fear talking point. A la I alone can fix it. If I lose, everything will crash. Be afraid of not having 45 in charge. 

[rabas]

57 minutes ago, candide said:

As post with no fact complaining about not enough facts....

 

If you want more details, you can read it in the following article, from which I provide a quote. The article also links the official IG statement.

In a statement issued late Monday afternoon, the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) said that the form submitted by the whistleblower on August 12, 2019, was the same one the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018. The statement reiterated the fact that having firsthand knowledge of the event has never been required in order to submit a whistleblower complaint. "Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute."

"In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant...need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-complaint-conspiracy-fact-check/index.html

 

Nothing changed, same same, said the deep MSM. But as reported by a Canadian environmental consultant outside msm land, the govenment's real online form was changed on September 25 right after the story broke. Why? So I downloaded that version, now in a safe place in Thailand, wrapped in foil wiped with hot chilli peppers. Here it is......... created on the Sept 24th and last modified on the Sept 25.  CNN fact (cough) checkers didn't mention that. Adobe PDF files are fully secure, which is why the US government uses them.

 

 

 

[Slip]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No.

let me explain it to you.  The quoted article had some actual facts in it.  Your post? Not so much.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh dear. We know that Trump lies, cheats on his wife etc etc etc, and guess what? it doesn't change anything. We've always known. The Dems should have stuck with Bernie and he'd be president right now.

Given the choice, it's not surprising Trump won. Best option of two bad choices.

Back to "But, but, but...Hillary!"

[candide]

53 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Nothing changed, same same, said the deep MSM. But as reported by a Canadian environmental consultant outside msm land, the govenment's real online form was changed on September 25 right after the story broke. Why? So I downloaded that version, now in a safe place in Thailand, wrapped in foil wiped with hot chilli peppers. Here it is......... created on the Sept 24th and last modified on the Sept 25.  CNN fact (cough) checkers didn't mention that. Adobe PDF files are fully secure, which is why the US government uses them.

 

 

 

I just downloaded it and get the same dates. In case it has any importance (the law did not change, anyway; most of the statements have already been proven true) it would raise the following questions:

- what has been exactly modified?

- how was the form on August 12?

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had the Dems co operated with Trump rather than trying to tear him down for the past 2 + years, America would have been a far better place than it is now. Clinton did co operate with the GOP following his impeachment and is remembered fondly today.

The Republicans had both houses of Congress for the first two years of Trump's Presidency and the only significant legislative accomplishment was a tax cut that is giving the US trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.  You can't blame Trump's incompetence of the Democrats.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, doggie1955 said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ukraine-ambassadors-testimony-throws-cold-water-democrats-quid-pro-quo-argument-against-trump?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

From your link:

 

"The third point Volker stresses is that “at no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden.” He further states that in the text messages he provided, “Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion.” "

 

 

"Volker also said he was not on the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky at the center of the Democrats’ latest impeachment inquiry and was not aware Biden’s name was dropped until the transcript was released on September 25."

 

Volker's testimony clears him, but not Trump.