Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

[JimL]

Isn't it funny how you're willing to take the word of an anonymous "whistleblower" who has no direct knowledge, over that of a named on-the-record source?

Isn't it funny how the President of the U.S. is forcing the anonyimity of the whistelblower by denying him his protection as a whistleblower. And btw, you have no idea what the source of his knowledge is. Would you like to hear from him?

[JimL]

If they are recipients in this instance, they are guilty of corruption.

Oh, I see, so if Hunter Biden and his company are working for Burisma and they are the recipients of money for their work, whatever that work might entail, then they are guilty of corruption? Is that what you're asserting? Besides that, whether Biden is guilty of anything is besides the point, the point is that Trump extorted the Ukrainian President in order to force his hand into opening an investigation into his political rival. And he did so at the risk of U.S. national security.

There aren't enough votes to begin impeachment - this is more likely to scare some off. Pelosi seems to know it - although she no longer seems to be in control.

There are enough votes now, and they aren't being scared off, they're signing on. Pelosi is a vote counter, and the fact that she is now on board with opening a formal inquiry means that she now knows that she has the votes.

[Mountain Man]

Well, the transcript has been released...

https://www.scribd.com/document/4274...oad&from_embed

And let's just say, "I told you so."

Most likely it's another nothing burger.

[Bill the Cat]

He definitely has to go, he's another traitor in that he is covering up for the treasonous president. A Republican, and I hate Republicans

Fify n/c

[Juvenal]

And again, as I mentioned upthread, those who are willing to wait will be rewarded. Both audio and transcripts of the call will be in the press soon enough, and we can move on from the if, if, if ... speculations to a more serious discussion of facts.

I was wrong:

The rough transcript of Trump’s Ukrainian call: There are likely no tapes — but plenty of witnesses

He said when he first started in the Situation Room, he asked his predecessor why they didn’t just record the phone calls rather than going through all the trouble of this furious transcription. “The answer I got was ‘Oh God, no. They haven’t recorded those calls since the early ’70s,’” Pfeiffer recalled. After that, he said he didn’t feel the need to inquire any further.

[Juvenal]

As you said the numbers are right in front of you:

The following table lists the accuracy of pollsters in the November 8, 2016 US Presidential election using the measure of polling accuracy proposed by Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy.

An accuracy measure of 0.00 indicates that the odds ratio of the survey results matches the odds ratio of the actual results (the closer to 0.00, the better).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39846[/ATTACH]

First of all, this is your brain on partisanship, admixed, by way of allowing the greatest benefit of the doubt, with a stunning lack of mathematical foundation so profound as to make me cringe in empathetic pain.

And no, don't even go there. This is a response from a brain uninfected by partisanship.

I posted the actual numbers, and am giving up enough of my time to correct these numbers you should never have posted. You looked at the actual numbers, dismissed them for no better reason than because you didn't like them, and went looking for numbers that suited you better, abdicating any responsibility for arguing why they might be better.

Your table isn't sourced. It's clearly coming from a propaganda site, but it's not clear which propaganda site it is, not that it's difficult to reproduce the figures.

When posting the original values, from a sourced site, roujim, it occurred to me someone might instead choose to rank the polls by projected margin of victory, or even ratio of victory, but I dismissed it as so obviously dishonest no one would go there. After all, these polling figures are ranges, x ± error, yielding ranges of margins and ratios that, even for the worst of these surveys, would likely include a value exactly spot on.

So the egg's on me. I trusted too much.


Take a deep breath, clear your head, and look what you posted. The study cited is a trivial analysis. It's "What if we only paid attention to the ending ratio?" study. It makes no claims to superiority as a measure, and wouldn't, because no researcher would miss the opening for outliers to capture a "best of" prize, and especially wouldn't argue for such with rounded values subject to pigeonholing, the principle that assures us we can always find a 22/7 style ratio for pi that beats out its neighbors with similar sized denominators.

A quick calculation shows pigeonholing victories at D/R of 47/45 and 46/44 beating out Rasmussen, and further down the chart, an 18/17 would have beaten all but Rasmussen in this survey.


Someone, not you, if we're to grant you're not deliberately dishonest, went looking for a study incorporating a scaled error cancellation to remove the error in the Rasmussen poll, 3 points for each major party candidate, in order to promote it above polls with actual errors many times less than Rasmussen, as evident from the raw values posted above.


In addition, and again, the Rasmussen sample size is 500/day aggregated over 3 days, or 1500, yielding a natural 1-sigma polling error, 1/√n, of 2.6 percent, meaning any particular report's accuracy cannot, even in principle, be expected to provide a sample with sufficient accuracy to stand above the rest. This is why Rasmussen polls are aggregated over 3 days, and why 538 and similar sites aggregate multiple polls, effectively increasing the sample size to reduce polling error.

This quest, or any quest, for a "best of" poll, even an honest quest as this one is not, cannot even in principle find a more accurate projection than the polling aggregators.

[Mountain Man]

Duh, so what if they were recipients of money? Besides that, your so called source can say anything he wants, like "he (shokin) was making plans to investigate" but there is no evidence of anything. Btw, your wannabe dictator has crossed the rubicon, as they say, with this one. Impeachment time!

Isn't it funny how you're willing to take the word of an anonymous "whistleblower" who has no direct knowledge, over that of a named on-the-record source?

[Teallaura]

Duh, so what if they were recipients of money? Besides that, your so called source can say anything he wants, like "he (shokin) was making plans to investigate" but there is no evidence of anything. Btw, your wannabe dictator has crossed the rubicon, as they say, with this one. Impeachment time!

If they are recipients in this instance, they are guilty of corruption.

There aren't enough votes to begin impeachment - this is more likely to scare some off. Pelosi seems to know it - although she no longer seems to be in control.

[JimL]

According to the Ukrainian government and the prosecutor himself, Hunter Biden was specifically named in the investigation.

The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

Duh, so what if they were recipients of money? Besides that, your so called source can say anything he wants, like "he (shokin) was making plans to investigate" but there is no evidence of anything. Btw, your wannabe dictator has crossed the rubicon, as they say, with this one. Impeachment time!

[Mountain Man]

And no, as much as you wish it were the case, he wasn't investigating Bidens son.

According to the Ukrainian government and the prosecutor himself, Hunter Biden was specifically named in the investigation.

The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...obe-is-revived

[JimL]

Maybe Barr will be impeached afore Trump.

He definitely has to go, he's another traitor in that he is covering up for the treasonous president.

[JimL]

If there is a case for extortion it would be Biden threatening to hold back something like a billion dollars in aid unless the prosecutor that was just happening to be investigating his son and the company he worked for was fired.

Yeah, except the Prosecutor was a crook himself, an extorter himself, which is why the west, including the IMF, was demanding his firing. And no, as much as you wish it were the case, he wasn't investigating Bidens son.

[JimL]

You proclaimed that Biden was sent by the Obama Administration because they didn't think that a prosecutor was moving quick enough at prosecuting corruption cases. And Biden threatened to cut off aid to the country unless the prosecutor they didn't like was fired.

That's not interfering in their politics. The entire western world including the IMF wanted the Ukrainian government to crack down on the rampant corruption of which the Prosecutor General, Shokin, was known to be a main participant in. Biden was sent over there because Shokin was a participant in that corruption rather than a prosecutor of it. The west didn't want to give aid to an ally where there was so much corruption, and that was the message that Biden was sent to deliver. Trump was simply trying to shift the narrative from his own corruption by trying to extort the Ukranian government into investigating and implicating his possible political opponent by threatening to withhold nearly 400 million in military aid appropriated by Congress, aid that they desperately needed to defend their eastern border from both, our adversary and theirs, Russia, and Trumps buddy Putin.
Now the wannabe dictator is, finally, formally facing impeachment!

[Mountain Man]

If you have any actual tangible, non-"Clinton Cash" evidence...

Translation: "If we discount the evidence showing that the accusations are true, then what evidence do we have to show that the accusations are true?"

[Sam]

Him using his power to get a foreign country to basically 'hire' his son and friends is not illegal? And then using his power and status as VP to blackmail the Ukraine into firing this prosecutor isn't illegal either? Wow. You guys sure have a different set of standards when it comes to your guys than when it comes to Trump.

If Trump had gotten Putin to do business with his son, the democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

Also if this prosecutor wasn't going after Biden's son, then what business was it of Biden's in the first place to tell a foreign country that they need to fire some prosecutor or not get money from the US? That would be an internal affair that would be of no interest to Biden.

I ... don't think you understand that Biden was the vice president at the time and advancing the Obama administration's official position toward Ukraine, in response to an international incident where Shokin was hampering a UK probe into ... the Burisma Group. Had Biden a personal interest in hiding family corruption, it would be unwise to be the point man on the Obama administration's attempt to get Shokin fired for, among many things, not allowing that investigation to go forward.

If you have any actual tangible, non-"Clinton Cash" evidence of Biden using his position to get his children hired (as opposed to his son using the Biden name to get a cushy hire), that'd be news. As of the moment, it doesn't publicly exist.

--Sam