Reply to Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. . . . [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

If Volker was just "doing his job," then why did the whistle blower implicate Volker in possible misconduct, which was obviously the only reason Volker was included in the complaint?  The whistleblower says:

"On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political figures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy."

This is at best, third or fourth hand hearsay.  What is a "readout" of a meeting?  Notes?  A transcript?  The Whistleblower is saying some unidentified person looked at "readouts" and then relayed an account of those "readouts" to whistleblower, and based on this third or fourth hand hearsay, Volker supposedly did something that the whistleblower didn't like.

Most likely whistleblower has some personal axe to grind with both Volker and Sondland.  If not, why does whistleblower include their names, yet leaves out the names of the witnesses who supposedly provided whistleblower with information from "multiple readouts"?

Sounds like the whistleblower is using this as an opportunity to try to settle some old scores/bureaucratic turf fighting disputes.

This will all end when Volker testifies on Thursday.

Shortest.  Scandal.  Ever.[/quote]

You think you can analyze this situation when you a) don’t know what a readout is; and b) don’t know the difference between a deposition and testimony. OK.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics