Whistleblower complaint describes White House cover-up on Trump-Ukraine scandal

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I have no idea what she submitted  .You know the rules here ! 

Until you can prove it is second hand info hear say. But if true wouldn't you hide it from the illegal leakers. ie discussions among leaders that is classified

No, conway admitted it.

Trump admitted what he did.

Giuliani admitted what he did.

 

not one thing has been shown to be wrong from the whistleblower. Even trumps own IG says its credible.

[Tippaporn]

Dems don't have a firm schedule on a vote and are throwing out a tentative date around Thanksgiving.  They may not have to vote if it all falls apart for them before that.  Looks likely.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Now this is odd . . . and very convenient.  Also, it's been reported that Schiff has had a copy of the whistle blower's complaint since Aug. 12th.  Only saw one source for that info so I wouldn't call it confirmed . . . yet.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

More than a few people have noted that this is not your ordinary whistle blower complaint.  Reads like it was written by a lawyer.  It certainly appears the whistle blower had help, or if he wrote any of it himself.

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/the-whistleblower-complaint-isnt-a-whisteblower-complaint-its-a-closing-argument/

[Tippaporn]

More oddities regarding the whistle blower complaint.  There are some sharp minds out there, unlike some of those here.  I'm tellin' ya, this caper is gonna blow up in dem Dem's faces.  Almost as if they were trying to set Trump up but, as usual, Trump is actually setting them up.  Granted, pure speculation on my part.

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Well, this blows another angle of this caper for the libs.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

I believe there are some posters here who might want to reconsider who they use as reliable sources of information.  How can you ignore the fake reporting???

 

 

[Becker]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I believe there are some posters here who might want to reconsider who they use as reliable sources of information.  How can you ignore the fake reporting???

 

 

I do by discounting all the alt sources you rely upon.

[candide]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

And some how the whistle blower who uses second hand info from a source (OCCR) who in its own right is politically suspect and highly  motivated by its own representation as I mentioned in my previous comment  .

. Whats important to note is the whistleblower second hand allegations  has brought to light many interesting questions!

Which will result in investigations by both parties judiciary representatives. Stay tuned 

 

(whistleblower report footnotes,OCCR) 

 

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Looks sketchy.  I think you're right, riclag.  Stay tuned, indeed.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/26/dossier-2-0-whistleblower-complaint-relies-on-soros-funded-investigative-reporting-group-that-partnered-with-buzzfeed/

Thank you for drawing our attention to OCCRP. It indeed brings to light interesting questions. For example, I recommend reading their report cited by Breitbart.

 

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/meet-the-florida-duo-helping-giuliani-dig-dirt-for-trump-in-ukraine

 

[Tippaporn]

Knowledgeable, experienced ex-CIA official weighs in on the whistle blower's complaint.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, Becker said:

I do by discounting all the alt sources you rely upon.

Now that's a joke of a response.  The only credible sources out there are the ones approved by you?  Thankfully it's a choice you can only make for yourself.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Knowledgeable, experienced ex-CIA official weighs in on the whistle blower's complaint.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

interview of Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, ????

"The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a far-right,[3][4] Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The organization's founder and current president is Frank Gaffney Jr.. The organization's mission statement is "To identify challenges and opportunities likely to affect American security",[5] where main activities are focused on exposing and researching what it believes to be jihadist threats to the United States; a number of these beliefs have been widely discredited, such as its false claims about American ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The CSP has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among a wide variety of other media and research organizations, for propagating conspiracy theories and Islamophobia, and described as a hate group."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Thank you for drawing our attention to OCCRP. It indeed brings to light interesting questions. For example, I recommend reading their report cited by Breitbart.

 

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/meet-the-florida-duo-helping-giuliani-dig-dirt-for-trump-in-ukraine

 

Reads like a typical MSM piece.  No evidence of wrong doing noted in the article.  But I encourage them to do their best and find something of substance.  I'm all for the fall of corruption wherever it may lie.

 

Aside from that, and this is just my opinion based on my own research, I won't give much weight to any organization that's linked with Soros.  And I hear that OCCRP just recently partnered with BuzzFeed,  Terrible news outlet in my opinion.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Knowledgeable, experienced ex-CIA official weighs in on the whistle blower's complaint.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

In 2011, Fleitz was hired by Newsmax Media to found the Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET), an online international analysis and forecasting service. He served as the LIGNET Director until 2013 when he was named a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy,^[12] run by Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim activist and conspiracy theorist.^[13] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_H._Fleitz

 

Here's a little bit about the Center for Security Policy

 

The organization's mission statement is "To identify challenges and opportunities likely to affect American security",^[5] where main activities are focused on exposing and researching what it believes to be jihadist threats to the United States; a number of these beliefs have been widely discredited, such as its false claims about American ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The CSP has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among a wide variety of other media and research organizations, for propagating conspiracy theories and Islamophobia, and described as a hate group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

interview of Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, ????

"The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a far-right,[3][4] Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The organization's founder and current president is Frank Gaffney Jr.. The organization's mission statement is "To identify challenges and opportunities likely to affect American security",[5] where main activities are focused on exposing and researching what it believes to be jihadist threats to the United States; a number of these beliefs have been widely discredited, such as its false claims about American ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The CSP has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among a wide variety of other media and research organizations, for propagating conspiracy theories and Islamophobia, and described as a hate group."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

I believe I mentioned it in this thread, or perhaps it was in another thread, that I would never rely on Wickedpedia for anything other than information that they cannot distort for any useful purpose.  I do understand, though.  The sources of information which are acceptable and used by libs are rejected by conservatives and the sources used and accpted by conservatives are rejected by libs.  So, same same.  The only difference in my mind is that lib sources haven proven themselves to be fake whereas conservative sources have been shown, at least to me, to be much more reliable.

 

Again, up to you what you want to use as your source.

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that's a joke of a response.  The only credible sources out there are the ones approved by you?  Thankfully it's a choice you can only make for yourself.

I make my own choices as to what constitutes a credible source as do you. Do you find that strange?

Edited September 28, 2019 by Becker

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

In 2011, Fleitz was hired by Newsmax Media to found the Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET), an online international analysis and forecasting service. He served as the LIGNET Director until 2013 when he was named a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy,^[12] run by Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim activist and conspiracy theorist.^[13] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_H._Fleitz

 

Here's a little bit about the Center for Security Policy

 

The organization's mission statement is "To identify challenges and opportunities likely to affect American security",^[5] where main activities are focused on exposing and researching what it believes to be jihadist threats to the United States; a number of these beliefs have been widely discredited, such as its false claims about American ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The CSP has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among a wide variety of other media and research organizations, for propagating conspiracy theories and Islamophobia, and described as a hate group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

I believe your boy candide already has this covered.  See my reply to his post.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

I make my own choices as to what constitute a credible source as do you. Do you find that strange?

Not at all.  Nowhere have I implied that it was strange.  Show me where if I have and I'll happily correct myself.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Now this is odd . . . and very convenient.  Also, it's been reported that Schiff has had a copy of the whistle blower's complaint since Aug. 12th.  Only saw one source for that info so I wouldn't call it confirmed . . . yet.

 

 

Why has no one replied to this?  This is not opinion.  It hard, cold fact.  Where and how does it fit into this narrative?  Do you guys have any idea?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Dems don't have a firm schedule on a vote and are throwing out a tentative date around Thanksgiving.  They may not have to vote if it all falls apart for them before that.  Looks likely.

 

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  What would happen during the impeachment proceedings if, say, a republican were to produce this treaty?  How would that change the Dem's narrative that Trump requesting information from the Ukrainian president was illegal, or treasonous?

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tippaporn

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why has no one replied to this?  This is not opinion.  It hard, cold fact.  Where and how does it fit into this narrative?  Do you guys have any idea?

No idea, probably one of those hard core liberals that are swarming the CIA.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

No idea, probably one of those hard core liberals that are swarming the CIA.

Noooooooo!!  That would be unthinkable.  Unconscionable.  I refuse to believe it!!

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No deflection, candide.  You say you provided sources (plural).  I only see a link to Wickedpedia.  I do not trust that source in the least.  If you did have another link please post it and I'll read it.  Again, I'm not deflecting but I am firm about not using certain sources.

 

Through the years I've read too much about how Wickedpedia edits their entries.  Sorry I can't provide any links as I simply can't remember where and when I've run across information on them.  Fair enough?

Fair enough?

No.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Fair enough?

No.

Well, that's too bad for you, steve.  I can't help ya.

 

Hey, what is this, a tag team.  I'm all by my lonesome here.

 

It's O.K.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Dems don't have a firm schedule on a vote and are throwing out a tentative date around Thanksgiving.  They may not have to vote if it all falls apart for them before that.  Looks likely.

 

 

There's a lot of you guys out there and I would think that at least one of you would attempt to reply to this.  I mean this is factual so there's nothing to dispute about it.  What would be the implications during the impeachment process when someone shows up with this?  Do you think it will be detrimental to the Dem's chances to oust Trump?

[Slip]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

BBC?  Ah, no.  Here's just a single link.  And it's a nasty one.

 

Global research site removed for brevity.

 

BTW, it's an excellent article.

Were you not just criticising your opponents for using non-credible sources? 

(Sorry- forgot link) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Slip

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

I have no idea what she submitted  .You know the rules here ! 

Until you can prove it is second hand info hear say. But if true wouldn't you hide it from the illegal leakers. ie discussions among leaders that is classified

A problem with your line of argument is the Whistleblower’s report exactly matches the transcripts released by the WH.

 

The WH released the proof of the veracity of what the whistleblower reported. 

 

You can argue all day long about ‘secondhand’, but it doesn’t detract from the proven veracity of the whistleblower’s report.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

A problem with your line of argument is the Whistleblower’s report exactly matches the transcripts released by the WH.

 

The WH released the proof of the veracity of what the whistleblower reported. 

 

You can argue all day long about ‘secondhand’, but it doesn’t detract from the proven veracity of the whistleblower’s report.

Yes and everything in the report can be confirmed or refuted via further direct investigation. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that's a joke of a response.  The only credible sources out there are the ones approved by you?  Thankfully it's a choice you can only make for yourself.

Erm no.

 

The whistleblower report is a source that has been proven by means of evidence released by the WH to be credible.

 

Which is precisely why you and other Trump supporters are putting so much energy into trying to discredit the whistleblower.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Why has no one replied to this?  This is not opinion.  It hard, cold fact.  Where and how does it fit into this narrative?  Do you guys have any idea?

You find it odd that nobody takes your claims ‘that it has been reported that (insert hogwash)’ seriously?!