Full Release of Whistle Blower and IG letter.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Equals do talk, don't they? Is all communication through a chain of command?

Even among equals, there's compartmentalism, "need to know", privileged conversation and confidentiality. For some reason the whistle blower found themselves in a position of a lot of government officials dumping classified information on him.

If someone wishes to "blow the whistle" on a higher authority, why would they need to go through a higher authority to do so? That makes no sense.

That's what Congress is for.

a reply to: shooterbrody

you do understand that is what impeachment is?

Bill Clinton was impeached?

a reply to: XCrycek

Kudos for you trying to stay open minded, but you won't find one single pro Trump person on ATS that shares your take on this.

I am a Trump supporter, and I agree with him. Maybe not on the minutia of the case, but overall I want to know what is really going on too.

We are having a pretty decent conversation for once. Those are rare. Can you allow this one to continue? Please?

TheRedneck

a reply to: neutronflux

Bill Clinton was refereed by the house for impeachment but was cleared by the senate.
so no

I am incorrect
he was "impeached" by the house
he was found not guilty by the senate

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: shooterbrody

you do understand that is what impeachment is?

Bill Clinton was impeached?

He was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes and if at the end of the day when they conclude whatever inquiry they are holding comes to a close and all they have is some third hand account of something from someone else who claims to have hard something said by someone heard who heard the phone call then yes, its utter crap.

If however they show a body of evidence from a range of sources that all back up what this whistleblower is saying with a first hand on the record account then its something different.

You are being way to premature in calling this out as BS. My honest suspicion is that this will come to nothing because as I said on a previous thread I really don't think Trump could be this stupid. With that said however before I formulate my opinion on the matter I want as full of an account of the facts (not the bias spin of left/right political hacks) as possible.

It astounds me that you don't seem to want the same.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Documents are now available that prove Joe Biden extorted the Ukraine to drop its investigation.

twitter.com...

Wow!!!
All I hear in the MSM is IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH....
I had no ideal Biden did that LOL.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did the “whistle blower” produce any documents that held documented criminal activity?

a reply to: neutronflux

The complaint is public.

It's up to Congress to decide of the president's acts are corrupt and/or rise to criminality, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Remember when Americans held one to a "higher" standard, then that became "racist"?

now it's the "lowest common denominator"

well the "lowest comon denominator" is now in all branchs of Government


we are all equally stupid now, Happy?


(sorry my Joke about your bias against foxnews escapes you, the ones who did get it thought it was funny as hell)

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes and if at the end of the day when they conclude whatever inquiry they are holding comes to a close and all they have is some third hand account of something that someone else has said someone heard who heard the phonemail then yes, its utter crap.

If however they show a body of evidence from a range of sources that all back up what this whistleblower is saying with a first hand on the record account then its something different.

You are being way to premature in calling this out as BS. My honest suspicion is that this will come to nothing because as I said on a previous thread I really don't think Trump could be this stupid. With that said however before I formulate my opinion on the matter I want as full of an account of the facts (not the bias spin of left/right political hacks) as possible.

It astounds me that you don't seem to want the same.

I read the call transcript
I read the whistleblower complaint
I read the transcript of the statement from the president of ukraine
I do not need the medias interpretation of those items

none of the above are or show"high crimes or misdemeanors" imo

what else is there to see?
is there more to this event?
if so by all means please share such with me

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Take the bias out of it.

ok
once again the only REAL evidence that has been given

www.foxnews.com...

“I think you read everything. I’m sorry but I don’t want to be involved in democratic elections of the USA,” he said. “We had a good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things.” He added: “I think you read it that nobody pushed me.”

from the president of the Ukraine himself
it doesnt get any LESS biased than that

it is not second or third hand information
it is from the witness himself

I didn't know the President of Ukraine was an expert on U.S. law concerning the President. You learn something every day..

As a B-side, is anyone watching the Congressional hearings on this right now? Your entire house of cards is being toppled. Maguires answers to the Republicans are more damning than the answers to what the Democrats are asking him.

Kind of strange there isn't a thread here on something this big. Strange, but not unexpected at this point. It doesn't really match up with the narrative you all want so bad to believe.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Again are you not reading this right....

I honestly don't think he has done anything wrong, I just can't believe that even he would be that stupid.

That said, I am open minded and think that its best to wait this out, get a full account of the facts and take it from there before screaming for Impeachment or screaming that its all smoke no fire.

This really shouldn't be a controversial position to take.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Even among equals, there's compartmentalism, "need to know", privileged conversation and confidentiality. For some reason the whistle blower found themselves in a position of a lot of government officials dumping classified information on him.

Which is a good reason to question his assertions. Now, if he wants to name those who had concerns, so they can testify in the Senate and actually give impeachment a chance, that's a different story.

Of course, that would be violating a trust, which is exactly why second hand information is worthless unless substantiated. A first-hand whistleblower would not be in such a position; they could decide whether to testify without violating anyone else's trust.

That's what Congress is for.

Er, no, it's not. Congress' job is primarily to legislate. They do have oversight, but that is not their primary job.

The DNI is responsible for handling these complaints. Congress receives reports in order to ensure through oversight that the DNI is not corrupt.

TheRedneck

a reply to: underwerks

I didn't know the President of Ukraine was an expert on U.S. law concerning the President.

does he have to be?
or does he just have to tell us that there was no pressure applied, which is what he did
funny how little weight his part in all of this is given
you know since he is the one that was "being extorted" and all

would he be more credible if he was giving a 2nd or 3rd hand account of the call?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux

The complaint is public.

It's up to Congress to decide of the president's acts are corrupt and/or rise to criminality, high crimes and misdemeanors.

It’s not what I asked. A “secret” document outlining an order to comment an unlawful act is not protected by the label “secret”.

Did the “whistle blower” provide any documents?

a reply to: neutronflux

Bill Clinton was impeached?

Yes, he was.

An impeachment is akin to an indictment on an elected or appointed official. The House can impeach based on "high crimes and misdemeanors" but the Senate serves as the court to try said official. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate refused to convict and remove him from office.

TheRedneck

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Again are you not reading this right....

ok
if you say so

before screaming for Impeachment

as pelosi did on 9/24?
that is not something I made up
www.vox.com...

“The president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically,” Pelosi said in a brief speech to reporters. “The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.” Pelosi continued: “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry and directing our six committees to proceed with their investigation under that umbrellas of impeachment inquiry.”

you understand this was done before the call transcript was released
before the whistle blower complaint was released
before the president of ukraine made his statement

they have started the process based on crap

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Again are you not reading this right....

I honestly don't think he has done anything wrong, I just can't believe that even he would be that stupid.

That said, I am open minded and think that its best to wait this out, get a full account of the facts and take it from there before screaming for Impeachment or screaming that its all smoke no fire.

This really shouldn't be a controversial position to take.

I totally agree.
Trump is not some sweet naive little boy with nothing but innocence in his heart, but he also isn't dumb enough to commit a real crime on a telephone conversation he knows is being recorded.
The democrats are definitely jumping the gun with impeachment and are going to come out of this looking like fools.
If there is more to this story it hasn't come out yet so I don't get the rush unless the dems are trying to deflect heat from somewhere else. Biden or Epstein perhaps.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Dude honestly there is no point in continuing this chat with you....

I am basically saying I don't think Trump has done anything wrong but want to see all the facts before I come to a firm conclusion, that am keeping a open mind, that should be the default I think for everyone, including Pelosi. Yet you keep coming at me like its wrong of me to say am keeping a open mind and want to wait until we get a fuller account of all facts before making a firm conclusion.

I honestly think that this could be another case of "Alien in suit bad" because even when I am basically agreeing with the Trump supporters some of you still attack like I have just burned your favourite MAGA hat.