Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

[Anonymous]

The numbers are getting worse for Trump. Another 4-5 points, and it will begin to dip in to GOP senate numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

I’m serious. I mean this isn’t political, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

I’m serious. I mean this isn’t political, right?

What are you even talking about? Private entities do the polling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

I’m serious. I mean this isn’t political, right?

It is for the GOP. They won't do the right thing until they are sure they won't lose their seats over it. It's sad. So many of the greatest people in our country's history did the right thing when it wasn't popular, but it was right and necessary, and it made us a greater people. So many American heroes are rolling over in their graves right now for shame and in frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

I’m serious. I mean this isn’t political, right?

They are polling because the republicans in congress need to know when to jump ship to save themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Quinnipiac poll

IMPEACH TRUMP?

47% of Americans say YES
47% of Americans say NO

That's a net 20-point swing in one week

Last week: 37% impeach, 57% don't
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us09302019_udmp46.pdf/

Now why would they constantly be polling this?

Wait are you being facetious or are you really asking why they are polling this?

I’m serious. I mean this isn’t political, right?

It is for the GOP. They won't do the right thing until they are sure they won't lose their seats over it. It's sad. So many of the greatest people in our country's history did the right thing when it wasn't popular, but it was right and necessary, and it made us a greater people. So many American heroes are rolling over in their graves right now for shame and in frustration.

Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vows to block House efforts to "bully" State Department officials into testifying on the Ukraine controversy.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-vows-to-block-efforts-to-bully-state-department-officials-to-testify-about-ukraine-11569940841?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR2JA_wjCgo5xZ7jYOEQU2Ye2qLAwpQ8g01e_izni3yn343qN0jOr_NrpzY

Gee, this explains why Volker resigned on Friday.

Volker resigned because he probably retained legal counsel when the whistleblower letter was released and Volker's name was mentioned in it. Volker was thrown under the bus and placed into a conflict of interest position.

Undoubtedly, if Volker did gossip to the whistleblower about matters within Volker's authority (but not within the whistleblower's, which is why the whistleblower could not claim to have "first hand knowledge" about anything in his letter), doing so violated various compartmentlization guidelines. If there was no "need to know," why was Volker spreading gossip to the whistle blower? If Volker himself felt the president's conduct was improper, than Volker himself had a duty to report it to the I.G., but did not.

On the other hand, it is far more likely that Volker (and others) were simply "blowing off steam about the boss"--disagreeing with his judgment, but not intending to convey to the whistleblower that they believed the president was clearly acting beyond his legal authority. IOW, the whistle blower took garden variety "bitching about the boss by the water cooler," conveyed in private, intended to remain private, and abused that confidentiality of his colleagues for the whistle blower's own purposes.

Undoubtedly the whistle blower never intended to be placed in the spotlight, but rather, simply wished to stir up trouble against Trump by giving the I.G. breadcrumbs that "other people" had the "first hand knowledge." A very standard spy's tactic. Also used by Comey in fact when he leaked info to a news reporter/friend to facilitate the appointment of Mueller. Light a fire but leave no trace that you lit the fire. Standard trade craft in the I.C.

Unfortunately for the whistle blower, there's no way that the House can justify an impeachment vote unless the whistle blower gives public testimony. The exact same pattern happened with Blasey Ford. She wanted to be anonymous, however, you can't seriously expect to "take down" a supreme court nominee (much less a sitting President) based on anonymous accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vows to block House efforts to "bully" State Department officials into testifying on the Ukraine controversy.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-vows-to-block-efforts-to-bully-state-department-officials-to-testify-about-ukraine-11569940841?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR2JA_wjCgo5xZ7jYOEQU2Ye2qLAwpQ8g01e_izni3yn343qN0jOr_NrpzY

Gee, this explains why Volker resigned on Friday.

Volker resigned because he probably retained legal counsel when the whistleblower letter was released and Volker's name was mentioned in it. Volker was thrown under the bus and placed into a conflict of interest position.

Undoubtedly, if Volker did gossip to the whistleblower about matters within Volker's authority (but not within the whistleblower's, which is why the whistleblower could not claim to have "first hand knowledge" about anything in his letter), doing so violated various compartmentlization guidelines. If there was no "need to know," why was Volker spreading gossip to the whistle blower? If Volker himself felt the president's conduct was improper, than Volker himself had a duty to report it to the I.G., but did not.

On the other hand, it is far more likely that Volker (and others) were simply "blowing off steam about the boss"--disagreeing with his judgment, but not intending to convey to the whistleblower that they believed the president was clearly acting beyond his legal authority. IOW, the whistle blower took garden variety "bitching about the boss by the water cooler," conveyed in private, intended to remain private, and abused that confidentiality of his colleagues for the whistle blower's own purposes.

Undoubtedly the whistle blower never intended to be placed in the spotlight, but rather, simply wished to stir up trouble against Trump by giving the I.G. breadcrumbs that "other people" had the "first hand knowledge." A very standard spy's tactic. Also used by Comey in fact when he leaked info to a news reporter/friend to facilitate the appointment of Mueller. Light a fire but leave no trace that you lit the fire. Standard trade craft in the I.C.

Unfortunately for the whistle blower, there's no way that the House can justify an impeachment vote unless the whistle blower gives public testimony. The exact same pattern happened with Blasey Ford. She wanted to be anonymous, however, you can't seriously expect to "take down" a supreme court nominee (much less a sitting President) based on anonymous accusations.

Why don't you read the complaint so that you will know how Volker was mentioned in it?

Then come back to us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't see it in this thread, but perhaps in another? IG statement:

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "
The statement clearly says the whistleblower had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson obtained additional information during his preliminary review that supported other allegations in the complaint not based on firsthand knowledge, including Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump keeps digging that hole. . . .

Careful. All this is really saying is that the information in the complaint form claimed that the whistleblower had first hand knowledge (because that is, or was, a requirement to make such a complaint). However, the letter accompanying the complaint, which has been released, and was prepared or at least heavily edited by the whistle blower's attorneys, does not actually describe any first hand knowledge at all, and goes out of its way to state the contrary. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the complaint form and the letter.

What actually is the "first hand knowledge" that the whistle blower claims to have had? You'll note that the I.G., choosing his words carefully, doesn't state that the whistle blower actually has any first hand knowledge. In other words, the whistle blower lied in the complaint form about having first hand knowledge, and the I.G. failed to pick up on that discrepancy, and wants us to ignore it. Because it goes directly to whistle blower's credibility and I.G. is embarassed that he missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't see it in this thread, but perhaps in another? IG statement:

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "
The statement clearly says the whistleblower had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson obtained additional information during his preliminary review that supported other allegations in the complaint not based on firsthand knowledge, including Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump keeps digging that hole. . . .

Careful. All this is really saying is that the information in the complaint form claimed that the whistleblower had first hand knowledge (because that is, or was, a requirement to make such a complaint). However, the letter accompanying the complaint, which has been released, and was prepared or at least heavily edited by the whistle blower's attorneys, does not actually describe any first hand knowledge at all, and goes out of its way to state the contrary. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the complaint form and the letter.

What actually is the "first hand knowledge" that the whistle blower claims to have had? You'll note that the I.G., choosing his words carefully, doesn't state that the whistle blower actually has any first hand knowledge. In other words, the whistle blower lied in the complaint form about having first hand knowledge, and the I.G. failed to pick up on that discrepancy, and wants us to ignore it. Because it goes directly to whistle blower's credibility and I.G. is embarassed that he missed it.

I'm eating my lunch here wondering why you are spending your lunch break with these long but ungrounded passionate defenses of the indefensible.

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't see it in this thread, but perhaps in another? IG statement:

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "
The statement clearly says the whistleblower had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson obtained additional information during his preliminary review that supported other allegations in the complaint not based on firsthand knowledge, including Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump keeps digging that hole. . . .

Careful. All this is really saying is that the information in the complaint form claimed that the whistleblower had first hand knowledge (because that is, or was, a requirement to make such a complaint). However, the letter accompanying the complaint, which has been released, and was prepared or at least heavily edited by the whistle blower's attorneys, does not actually describe any first hand knowledge at all, and goes out of its way to state the contrary. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the complaint form and the letter.

What actually is the "first hand knowledge" that the whistle blower claims to have had? You'll note that the I.G., choosing his words carefully, doesn't state that the whistle blower actually has any first hand knowledge. In other words, the whistle blower lied in the complaint form about having first hand knowledge, and the I.G. failed to pick up on that discrepancy, and wants us to ignore it. Because it goes directly to whistle blower's credibility and I.G. is embarassed that he missed it.

Ultimately, the contents of the call as released by the White House are aligned with the contents of the whistleblower complaint. Why are you in the weeds on this making false claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't see it in this thread, but perhaps in another? IG statement:

"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. "
The statement clearly says the whistleblower had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and that Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson obtained additional information during his preliminary review that supported other allegations in the complaint not based on firsthand knowledge, including Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump keeps digging that hole. . . .

Careful. All this is really saying is that the information in the complaint form claimed that the whistleblower had first hand knowledge (because that is, or was, a requirement to make such a complaint). However, the letter accompanying the complaint, which has been released, and was prepared or at least heavily edited by the whistle blower's attorneys, does not actually describe any first hand knowledge at all, and goes out of its way to state the contrary. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the complaint form and the letter.

What actually is the "first hand knowledge" that the whistle blower claims to have had? You'll note that the I.G., choosing his words carefully, doesn't state that the whistle blower actually has any first hand knowledge. In other words, the whistle blower lied in the complaint form about having first hand knowledge, and the I.G. failed to pick up on that discrepancy, and wants us to ignore it. Because it goes directly to whistle blower's credibility and I.G. is embarassed that he missed it.

Ultimately, the contents of the call as released by the White House are aligned with the contents of the whistleblower complaint. Why are you in the weeds on this making false claims?

Because they’re trying to make that the talking point. Not Trump’s, Pence’s, Giuliani’s, Barr’s, and Pompeo’s inexcusable behavior. Treason. It’s only going to look worse the more than comes out.

I mean, if Putin gives permission for the transcripts to come out.

[Anonymous]

So Pompeo is admitting that, unlike Hillary Clinton, who sat for 11 hours of Benghazi questioning, he is too much of a snowflake to testify before the House, under subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Pompeo is admitting that, unlike Hillary Clinton, who sat for 11 hours of Benghazi questioning, he is too much of a snowflake to testify before the House, under subpoena.

Sounds like he knows himself well.