Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Has anyone in Trumps inner circle told him, or even discussed among themselves, that this might actually be bad for them, or are they all just saying what they want to hear?

[Anonymous]

13:34, if you read the entire IG statement that you just quoted from, you would see that it explicitly states that no first hand knowledge is now, nor has it ever, been required to make a whistleblower complaint. There was no changed, except a minor change to a form in May 2018. The whistleblower statute does not require first hand knowledge, and it would be illegal for the IG to implement such a requirement.

[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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

I read the complaint and the phone call memo.

I'm not sure that you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

Actually, I read both the summary of the call the White House released, the full whistleblower report as released and watched the hearing. They are aligned, even if you choose not to believe it.

[Anonymous]

WB page 1:
"I was not witness to most of the events described"
Therefore s/he was witness to some.

I think Trumpsters are relying on the masses not reading the original documents.

For example, Part 2 of the Mueller Report show multiple instances of obstruction of justice by Trump which is illegal and impeachable as a violation to uphold the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

So, why do you suppose Pompeo is obstructing justice by illegally instructing US State Department staffers not to appear before the US Congress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:34, if you read the entire IG statement that you just quoted from, you would see that it explicitly states that no first hand knowledge is now, nor has it ever, been required to make a whistleblower complaint. There was no changed, except a minor change to a form in May 2018. The whistleblower statute does not require first hand knowledge, and it would be illegal for the IG to implement such a requirement.

You're missing the point. What the I.G.'s statement said is that the whistle blower himself, in filling out the complaint form, claimed to have had first hand knowledge. However, the actual letter the whistle blower submitted (obviously drafted by his attorneys), denies having any first hand knowledge.

At some point, someone with first hand knowledge will have to testify, publicly, non-anonymously, and subject to cross examination, if the Dems want to impeach Trump.

Remember, whistle blower complaints are intended to remain confidential and to be used internally. This complaint isn't really a qualifying whistle blower complaint because Trump is not subject to the DNI's authority, so it's a misnomer to call him a whistle blower in the first place. In any event, none of this was ever supposed to be publicized, yet the Democrats forced that issue big time.

The Democrats desire to publicize what is inherently confidential and internal for purely political purposes is what will force the whistle blower to lose the cloak of anonymity, just like Blasey Ford, just like Christopher Steele.

Trump doesn't need to "out" the whistle blower because he is well aware that if the Dems want to proceed with an impeachment, they themselves have to expose the whistle blower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

NP here. I've read the White House released "transcript" (summary) word for word several times. It explicitly states that the transcript is not verbatim. It is the summary/interpretation of the people in the room, all of whom work for Trump, the subject of the investigation. The very same "transcript" was then placed on a super secret server where things of this nature typically do not go. No explanation of why given. I do not see anything in Schiff's theory of the crime that is inconsistent with the evidence we have so far. Prosecutors are allowed to present their theory of the crime. The defense is allowed to present their own theory. That is how this works.

[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?

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

Is this is such a sad situation and it's about the Constitution and the integrity of the nation, why constantly take the pulse of the public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:34, if you read the entire IG statement that you just quoted from, you would see that it explicitly states that no first hand knowledge is now, nor has it ever, been required to make a whistleblower complaint. There was no changed, except a minor change to a form in May 2018. The whistleblower statute does not require first hand knowledge, and it would be illegal for the IG to implement such a requirement.

You're missing the point. What the I.G.'s statement said is that the whistle blower himself, in filling out the complaint form, claimed to have had first hand knowledge. However, the actual letter the whistle blower submitted (obviously drafted by his attorneys), denies having any first hand knowledge.

At some point, someone with first hand knowledge will have to testify, publicly, non-anonymously, and subject to cross examination, if the Dems want to impeach Trump.

Remember, whistle blower complaints are intended to remain confidential and to be used internally. This complaint isn't really a qualifying whistle blower complaint because Trump is not subject to the DNI's authority, so it's a misnomer to call him a whistle blower in the first place. In any event, none of this was ever supposed to be publicized, yet the Democrats forced that issue big time.

The Democrats desire to publicize what is inherently confidential and internal for purely political purposes is what will force the whistle blower to lose the cloak of anonymity, just like Blasey Ford, just like Christopher Steele.

Trump doesn't need to "out" the whistle blower because he is well aware that if the Dems want to proceed with an impeachment, they themselves have to expose the whistle blower.

Okay. There, there, pat, pat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Is this is such a sad situation and it's about the Constitution and the integrity of the nation, why constantly take the pulse of the public?

Because polling firms poll constantly on the important issues of the day? Let this go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

So, why do you suppose Pompeo is obstructing justice by illegally instructing US State Department staffers not to appear before the US Congress?

Gee whiz, I thought the transcript of the phone call itself was sufficient to impeach Trump? So, why do you need state dept. staffers?

Also, if the I.G. who filed the whistle blower complaint with Congress believes they should remain anonymous, are you now saying it's OK for the Congress to contradict that?

Let's hear from Volker, shall we? Do you realize that Volker is going to testify that he never provided the whistle blower with any information that could justifiably be the basis of a whistle blower complaint, because if he knew of it, he would have filed such a complaint himself? Volker will also testify that his job is to carry out the policies of the Unites States as interpreted by the President, and that it is not the prerogative of a state department employee, or a CIA employee, to monitor the phone calls between the President and foreign leaders looking for political "gotchas"? And that those phone calls should remain privileged and undisclosed to Congress?

The Left is once again delusional here as with the Mueller probe and Blasey Ford.

Honest forthright people don't try to hide and falsely claim to be in fear of their lives, as this CIA "hero" is evidently doing. It's time for this double agent to testify, in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Is this is such a sad situation and it's about the Constitution and the integrity of the nation, why constantly take the pulse of the public?

Because polling firms poll constantly on the important issues of the day? Let this go.

I don't think I want to let it go. I'll be watching how the house reacts to this and uses it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually, they're not aligned at all. If they were aligned, Schiff wouldn't have pointlessly fabricated an opening statement at the DNI hearing which is somewhat consistent with the whistle blower's complaint, but not at all consistent with the actual phone call--which is why Schiff was forced to recant his own false statement as merely a "parody."

The Dems and MSM rely on folks such as yourself not actually watching the testimony and not actually reading the available materials.

So, why do you suppose Pompeo is obstructing justice by illegally instructing US State Department staffers not to appear before the US Congress?

Gee whiz, I thought the transcript of the phone call itself was sufficient to impeach Trump? So, why do you need state dept. staffers?

Also, if the I.G. who filed the whistle blower complaint with Congress believes they should remain anonymous, are you now saying it's OK for the Congress to contradict that?

Let's hear from Volker, shall we? Do you realize that Volker is going to testify that he never provided the whistle blower with any information that could justifiably be the basis of a whistle blower complaint, because if he knew of it, he would have filed such a complaint himself? Volker will also testify that his job is to carry out the policies of the Unites States as interpreted by the President, and that it is not the prerogative of a state department employee, or a CIA employee, to monitor the phone calls between the President and foreign leaders looking for political "gotchas"? And that those phone calls should remain privileged and undisclosed to Congress?

The Left is once again delusional here as with the Mueller probe and Blasey Ford.

Honest forthright people don't try to hide and falsely claim to be in fear of their lives, as this CIA "hero" is evidently doing. It's time for this double agent to testify, in public.

Volker was doing his job, as was described in the complaint.

He'll likely testify to just that.

I'm not sure what you think Volker was supposed to have said or done?