12 minutes ago, anicon said:

well don't hold your breath because that's going no where, the FBI were already aware of the Russian hacking into servers and were investigating Russian interference..

May as well roll out the welcome mat.  Welcome to ThaiVisa, anicon.

 

A simple meme like the above fails to convey all of the meaningful aspects of both investigations.  It therefore attempts to portray a conclusion in a disingenuous light.  I wouldn't be so fooled.

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Dr G made some unsubstantiated statements above, conclusions for which he has no evidence.

 

You had nothing to say on the matter.

 

Perhaps your own conclusions exclude acceptance of those that disagree with you, while obscuring from you the unfounded conclusions of those who share your blind faith to Trump.

I went back and read all of Dr. G's posts and found nothing he said that was unfounded.

 

I've mentioned this elsewhere; I rail not against those with different opinions, I rail against dishonesty.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are wrong.

 

I have concluded that Trump and his administration are hiding something and that the whistleblower report is the cause of them doing the hiding.

 

I am skeptical of everything Trump, his administration and his supporters have to say on the matter, up to and including the completeness of any documents they release.

 

I like you absolutely believe there is much more evidence to come out.

 

I very much look forward to seeing it.

Accepted.

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Dr G made some unsubstantiated statements above, conclusions for which he has no evidence.

 

You had nothing to say on the matter.

 

Perhaps your own conclusions exclude acceptance of those that disagree with you, while obscuring from you the unfounded conclusions of those who share your blind faith to Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcdcrAslurs

 

I know you hate watching videos but you need only go into this one for 90 seconds to hear that the whistleblower based his action on second-hand reports (hearsay).

This is CNN so you cannot complain that you do not like the source, as you usually do.

 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

May as well roll out the welcome mat.  Welcome to ThaiVisa, anicon.

 

A simple meme like the above fails to convey all of the meaningful aspects of both investigations.  It therefore attempts to portray a conclusion in a disingenuous light.  I wouldn't be so fooled.

In a sense you are correct.

 

The Benghazi investigation is stuck at zero indictments and will never go anywhere.

 

Mueller’s investigation has at least ten findings against Trump that cannot, under DoJ guidelines be indicted until Trump

leaves office. Mueller’s investigation has more convictions ‘up its sleave’.

9 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcdcrAslurs

 

I know you hate watching videos but you need only go into this one for 90 seconds to hear that the whistleblower based his action on second-hand reports (hearsay).

This is CNN so you cannot complain that you do not like the source, as you usually do.

 

‘I was not a direct witness to most of these events’.

 

So a direct witness to some.

 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the Whistleblower 

 

Not a news reader reading a redacted document that purports to be the whistleblower’s report.

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

But I thought that digging up dirt on your opponent was just an accepted part of EVERYONE,S battle plan !

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

‘I was not a direct witness to most of these events’.

 

So a direct witness to some.

haha. Good try. I will await further real evidence. Please try to do the same. I promise that if Trump is actually guilty of anything meaningful, I will join the condemnation.

Inflammatory post reported and removed.  

 

Potus is right he is lucky they don't do to spies and traitors what they used to do.If they did Donald would be standing on the scaffold for selling his country out and not upholding his oath of office.

3 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

haha. Good try. I will await further real evidence. Please try to do the same. I promise that if Trump is actually guilty of anything meaningful, I will join the condemnation.

So if the whistleblower’s allegations are substantiated as fact, will you accept the allegations as a ‘meaningful’ and deserving of impeachment?

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So if the whistleblower’s allegations are substantiated as fact, will you accept the allegations as a ‘meaningful’ and deserving of impeachment?

I said what I said. Are you trying to channel that woman who interviewed Jordan Peterson [so what you are saying is]?  (cathy ch 4 was it?)

5 minutes ago, Paul Henry said:

Potus is right he is lucky they don't do to spies and traitors what they used to do.If they did Donald would be standing on the scaffold for selling his country out and not upholding his oath of office.

Innocent until proven guilty.  All facts and information not in yet.  Yet you have him convicted already.  By chance, do you hate Trump?

 

Folks, I can't say it enough.  In the U.S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and for very good reason.  What we have here is more akin to a lynching mob.  This entire scenario will most likely not play out too quickly.  Until then, why not uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty?  Or are some here in favor of abandoning that concept?

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So if the whistleblower’s allegations are substantiated as fact, will you accept the allegations as a ‘meaningful’ and deserving of impeachment?

Doesn't matter, elected officials stick together. 

The 53 member Republican majority in the Senate will never impeach their leader

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  All facts and information not in yet.  Yet you have him convicted already. 

The only way to remove trump is if he can be brought in front of a Federal Grand Jury and charged with a felony.

This is unprecedented for the POTUS, though believe Nixon resigned as this was about to happen to him.

 

I read this from a lawyer a couple years ago and it has not been pursued.  The perennial goal of impeachment seems ludicrous as can never happen with the Republican majority in the Senate

 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Skallywag
grammerly

27 minutes ago, Paul Henry said:

Potus is right he is lucky they don't do to spies and traitors what they used to do.If they did Donald would be standing on the scaffold for selling his country out and not upholding his oath of office.

There's a thing about accusing people of the thing you yourself are actually doing, my ex-wife did it all the time.  I think it's part of the MBA curriculum.

 

But I think what DT was getting at about "used to do" is more like this:

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by bendejo

death by a thousand cuts.  just a matter of time for Trump to hang himself by his own rope.  good riddance 

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There was a time when a president like that would have resigned.

And there was a time when he own party would have thrown him out.

But those times are obviously over. Amazing USA. RIP

Trump thinks we should go back even further in time.  Seems a rather drastic way to deal with his treasonous activity, but if that's what he wants...

 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."

 

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

Stop calling this person a whistleblower. He/she/Zer/Zim has no first person information and therefore does not even have a whistle to blow.

I'm not convinced by your comment that you actually understand what the term "whistleblower' means. You should look up the definition.

 

---------------------------------

The most alarming thing about what has come out regarding these matters in the last 24 hours for mine is that fact that one of the very people mentioned in the Whistleblower documentation, William Barr, was charged with concluding that the report was not to be released. And by all accounts I have read and listened to last night, the time Barr's team took to come to a conclusion was astoundingly fast. This took place even after credible people in high ranking positions had deemed that the Whistleblower's report was credible. That is astounding.

 

I don't think the moving of the electronic transcript to a secure coded server is the smoking gun some think it would be. A narrative from the White House could be created stating that there had been leaks in the past and that although they were not following protocol, they took evasive action. It is not a valid and lawful reason, but it gives wriggle room. And the White House will be wriggling like crazily in the coming months.

 

Not following protocol in this matter is still extremely damaging if the Whistleblower report is proven accurate, because White House lawyers directed staff to actively change operating protocols. We will find out who those lawyers were.

 

The house need to get unified. Some of the questioning last night did not gel and sounded haphazard. It was clear Maguire was not willing to say he had not had direct discussions with Trump regarding the Whistleblower and that in itself is very damning.

 

Not much can happen until the positions of the Whistleblower and the people he/she refers to are known. After the correct checks on these people, the White House's claims of 3rd hand information can then start to be dismantled. Until then, nothing can be done about people's claims the Whistleblower report is false.

 

And as despicable as the behaviour is, nothing can currently be done about the president's mildly veiled threats that the Whistleblower and those they gleaned information from are spies and should be dealt with as such.

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Farangwithaplan

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

 

First question, is the whistleblower  report released by the Administration the entirety of the report you yourself submitted an If not what’s missing?

There are some small redactions in the Whistleblower report. Apparently there are documents that the footnotes refer to that have not become public knowledge for security reasons.

 

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

Still doesn't alter the fact that he operated on hearsay and from media reports. I did not say that he operated in bad faith though. Zealots and patriots are overly ready to believe what they want to believe. 

What you are getting confused with is that the media reports noted in the Whistleblower reports are used as further confirmation of a piece of information that was found independently of the news report. That is a fair and reasonable way of offering evidence based information.

 

That is the type of reporting that is usually not present when people use only sound bites and slogans and deflections to try to evade from the real facts.

 

 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Farangwithaplan

18 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

The only way to remove trump is if he can be brought in front of a Federal Grand Jury and charged with a felony.

Not strictly true. The democrats could always do it the mature way. You know, win an election. But I think with the appalling behavior over the last 3 years of witch-hunt on top of witch-hunt and hysterical tantrums, that running a sensible campaign would be extremely difficult to do at this late stage.

Stop calling this person a whistleblower. He/she/Zer/Zim has no first person information and therefore does not even have a whistle to blow.

Incorrect. The label is correct. Don't shoot the messenger.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  All facts and information not in yet.  Yet you have him convicted already.  By chance, do you hate Trump?

 

Folks, I can't say it enough.  In the U.S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and for very good reason.  What we have here is more akin to a lynching mob.  This entire scenario will most likely not play out too quickly.  Until then, why not uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty?  Or are some here in favor of abandoning that concept?

Judging by their (non) actions I think that members of the Republican Party are convinced that he is innocent, innocent and more innocent, regardless of whether he is proven guilty or not. I would also be concerned about the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' when Trump is trying his hardest to influence the justice system, ie, appointing judges on the Supreme Court that are likely to deliver favourable outcomes for him. 

Can Trump haters explain to me why there is so much outrage about Trump and yet nothing regarding Biden and his interference ?

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Innocent until proven guilty.  All facts and information not in yet.  Yet you have him convicted already.  By chance, do you hate Trump?

 

Folks, I can't say it enough.  In the U.S. people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and for very good reason.  What we have here is more akin to a lynching mob.  This entire scenario will most likely not play out too quickly.  Until then, why not uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty?  Or are some here in favor of abandoning that concept?

The presumption of innocence is applicable in criminal investigations to be tried before a court of law.

 

Impeachment is not a crime investigation, it’s a political process.

 

I’ll refer you to your earlier innuendo at #21 regarding the whistleblower being a CIA agent and your assertions regarding the CIA for an example of the inevitable bias at play.

 

A poor attempt to impute the credibility of a whistleblower who the Director of National Intelligence has stated under oath that he believes acted in good faith and wholly within the law.

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Can Trump haters explain to me why there is so much outrage about Trump and yet nothing regarding Biden and his interference ?

Erm..... Biden isn’t being impeached.

 

Trump is.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm..... Biden isn’t being impeached.

 

Trump is.

He COULD be.

7 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

There are some small redactions in the Whistleblower report. Apparently there are documents that the footnotes refer to that have not become public knowledge for security reasons.

The document released has been edited, let’s not assume that only redactions were made.

 

Let’s hear from the Whistleblower her/himself.

Judging by their (non) actions I think that members of the Republican Party are convinced that he is innocent, innocent and more innocent, regardless of whether he is proven guilty or not. I would also be concerned about the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' when Trump is trying his hardest to influence the justice system, ie, appointing judges on the Supreme Court that are likely to deliver favourable outcomes for him. 

Innocent until supporting him ruins their own political careers.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

38 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Doesn't matter, elected officials stick together. 

The 53 member Republican majority in the Senate will never impeach their leader

They will if significant public opinion is in favor of impeachment.