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

Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    "Inferred" would never stand up under a court of law.
    What WILL stand up in the Impeachment is that the US president solicited help from a foreign country to investigate a potential 2020 political rival, whilst withholding desperately needed military aid to that country. Aid which had already been approved by Congress. It certainly seems like a quid pro quo was implied: You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terraceth
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.
    Jillian was her name
    She was sweeter than aspartame
    Her kisses reconfigured my DNA
    And after that I never was the same
    And I loved her even more
    Than Marlon Brando loved souffle
    She was gorgeous, she was charming
    Yeah, she was perfect in every way
    Except she was always using the word "infer"
    When she obviously meant "imply"
    And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing
    But frankly, I can't imagine why

    And I told her, I said
    "Hey! Are we playing horseshoes, honey?
    No, I don't think we are!
    You're close! (Close!)
    But no cigar!"

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.

    The Ukrainians deny being pressured - in affidavit!
    Of course the Ukrainians are going to deny being pressured, what would you expect them to do? Trump is the President whether they like it or not.
    And the press coverage was what alerted the White House to the issue with Biden's son.
    Now of course you just made that up. That was news a long long time ago. Trump didn't just wake up one morning and read it in the newspaper or see it on TV. This was a political plan to try and take out a political rival.


    It's Constitutional law 101 - the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to face one's accuser. The whistleblower laws cannot override that nor do they negate it.
    So is the right to a court trial, but not for the President. Impeachment is a political process.
    No, I said there were no named accusers in the complaint. Beyond that, there's no one saying "I witnessed X" or " i was intimidated by soandso" - THAT'S a very bad thing at this stage.
    Doesn't matter, the transcript is the evidence of wrongdoing in and of itself. In other words the evidence, trumps own words, is the accuser.

    The evidence in affidavit supports Trump - all the sworn statements by principals are in support of Trump's side. I wasn't arguing about 'impeachable' (isn't and the House hasn't even brought articles - the Senate hasn't done anything at all - so no, Congress didn't decide anything of the sort*) - I'm telling you there is next to no admissible evidence and what there is supports Trump.
    There is no affidavit or sworn statements that can refute the factual evidence of Trumps own words on tape, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.



    *It's the House's, not Congress' decision and it has not been made. Well, sorta - the Senate could take issue with the articles at trial.
    Right the House is going to impeach, and Moscow Mitch just came out and said that he has no choice but to try the case if the House follows through.
    Last edited by JimL; 10-01-2019, 06:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    There is a very interesting podcast on this subject, titled, ‘How the Whistle Blower Complaint Almost Didn’t Happen’ by ‘The Daily’. It looks like there was a complaint to CIA before the whistle blower complaint but it was blocked by, the now infamous, Barr.

    If there is any justice in this world, Barr will resign or be impeached, with, perhaps, a handful of creepy White House lawyers. Let’s pray for justice and speak up to ‘our’ congressmen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    There was a quid pro quo inferred...
    "Inferred" would never stand up under a court of law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]40038[/ATTACH]

    And now even after reading the transcript and seeing how the whistleblower's complaint is full of factual errors, instead of backing off they've decide to double even triple down.
    In other news, impeachment may become a fundraising fad - it's doing wonders for Trump thus far...

    Leave a comment:


  • RumTumTugger
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Oh, his guilt, his collusion, his abuse of power, his obstruction of Congress, it's all substantiated alright, but you'll find that out soon enough RTT, he's going to be impeached, and he's going to be found guilty, if not by the cowardly, unprincipled Republican Senate, then by the people. I suspect he might flee to Russia before the state courts get their hands on him after his ouster. But you're beloved dictator is done for and the crew and hostages are abandoning the fast sinking ship. You'll see, you'll see, don't worry RTT you will see.
    If it has been substantiated you would have more then just the assertions your leftist handlers give you to repeat JimL you'd be showing it. Where is the proof? Just repeating that it has been been substantiated and his guilt is proven isn't proof it is assertion, until you cite your sources with the proof you have nothing.
    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 10-01-2019, 12:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    There was a quid pro quo infered, and anyone with half a brain can see that in the wording of the text. There is also the common sense understanding that Trump didn't just wake up one day and think, hmmm, I think I'll look into this already debunked Hunter Biden thing from years ago just for the heck of it.
    Jim, you mean 'imply. You (general) can't 'infer' quid pro quo - or anything else - and have a criminal charge.

    The Ukrainians deny being pressured - in affidavit!

    And the press coverage was what alerted the White House to the issue with Biden's son.



    It's the whistleblower law, Tea, whistleblowers aren't named for good reason. And second hand info has nothing to do with it since the evidence is the transcript itself not the who blew the whistle on it.
    It's Constitutional law 101 - the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to face one's accuser. The whistleblower laws cannot override that nor do they negate it.

    You already said that.
    No, I said there were no named accusers in the complaint. Beyond that, there's no one saying "I witnessed X" or " i was intimidated by soandso" - THAT'S a very bad thing at this stage.

    I don't know what you mean to say by this. If it's just an assertion that it's not an impeachable offense, that's up to Congress to decide, and they already have decided.
    The evidence in affidavit supports Trump - all the sworn statements by principals are in support of Trump's side. I wasn't arguing about 'impeachable' (isn't and the House hasn't even brought articles - the Senate hasn't done anything at all - so no, Congress didn't decide anything of the sort*) - I'm telling you there is next to no admissible evidence and what there is supports Trump.




    *It's the House's, not Congress' decision and it has not been made. Well, sorta - the Senate could take issue with the articles at trial.
    Last edited by Teallaura; 10-01-2019, 10:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I can't imagine what it's like for you to try to get through each day through the fog of delusion.
    There would be no oversight had the democrats not won the House, and your beloved treasonous dictator would have been free to do Russia's bidding as Putin intended him to do. He is doing his best to undermine our democratic Institutions and democracy itself under the circumstances, the circumstances being a democratic House, but you can thank your god for the blue wave and the democrats later, after you are freed from the false narrative fed into the porches of your ears.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    There is no quid pro quo in the transcript. If the transcript is what 'you've got', then you (general) have nothing. There's nothing actionable in the transcript - and supporting testimony and documentation that rule out any quid pro quo.
    There was a quid pro quo infered, and anyone with half a brain can see that in the wording of the text. There is also the common sense understanding that Trump didn't just wake up one day and think, hmmm, I think I'll look into this already debunked Hunter Biden thing from years ago just for the heck of it.
    There are no named accusers in the complaint - I read it and realized that all by myself. Everything in the complaint is secondhand or possibly hearsay ('officials' rather than 'official' opens the possibility) - the whistleblower never states he directly observed/heard anything.
    It's the whistleblower law, Tea, whistleblowers aren't named for good reason. And second hand info has nothing to do with it since the evidence is the transcript itself not the who blew the whistle on it.
    Most damning of all, no accusers at all - not even the whistleblower has been named.
    You already said that.

    Every affidavit on record supports defense, not prosecution.
    I don't know what you mean to say by this. If it's just an assertion that it's not an impeachable offense, that's up to Congress to decide, and they already have decided.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    If it weren't for that big blue wave, there'd be no check on your dictator President and you could kiss your democracy goodbye. It must have been such a disappointment, it almost worked out for him.
    I can't imagine what it's like for you to try to get through each day through the fog of delusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Shhhh... don't tell Jimmy that. He still thinks there was a Big Blue Wave last November.
    If it weren't for that big blue wave, there'd be no check on your dictator President and you could kiss your democracy goodbye. It must have been such a disappointment, it almost worked out for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    There is no quid pro quo in the transcript. If the transcript is what 'you've got', then you (general) have nothing. There's nothing actionable in the transcript - and supporting testimony and documentation that rule out any quid pro quo.

    There are no named accusers in the complaint - I read it and realized that all by myself. Everything in the complaint is secondhand or possibly hearsay ('officials' rather than 'official' opens the possibility) - the whistleblower never states he directly observed/heard anything.

    Most damning of all, no accusers at all - not even the whistleblower has been named. Every affidavit on record supports defense, not prosecution.
    00000000000000ab000-00aaaa1.jpg

    And now even after reading the transcript and seeing how the whistleblower's complaint is full of factual errors, instead of backing off they've decide to double even triple down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    No, what we have is the transcript of the call itself. We don't need it direct from the whistleblower, it's in the transcript. The second hand claim nonsense is just the talking point for dummies you're buying into.
    There is no quid pro quo in the transcript. If the transcript is what 'you've got', then you (general) have nothing. There's nothing actionable in the transcript - and supporting testimony and documentation that rule out any quid pro quo.

    There are no named accusers in the complaint - I read it and realized that all by myself. Everything in the complaint is secondhand or possibly hearsay ('officials' rather than 'official' opens the possibility) - the whistleblower never states he directly observed/heard anything.

    Most damning of all, no accusers at all - not even the whistleblower has been named. Every affidavit on record supports defense, not prosecution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Thus, among the reasons the democrats are going to lose in 2020 (that and their candidates going all in on the far left stuff). In fact, this whole impeachment scheme could cost them some purple democrat seats too.
    Shhhh... don't tell Jimmy that. He still thinks there was a Big Blue Wave last November.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
7 responses
60 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
42 responses
244 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
106 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
322 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X