|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 1, 2019 10:25:55 GMT -5
Huh? You were the one saying we shouldn’t be taking second hand information but it’s not without precedent since it’s happened before.
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Oct 1, 2019 10:29:11 GMT -5
Huh? You were the one saying we shouldn’t be taking second hand information but it’s not without precedent since it’s happened before.
Just poking at you because you usually throw whataboutism out there every time I mention the Clintons in a post.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 1, 2019 10:33:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 1, 2019 10:36:50 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the controversial change was about whether or not whistleblower info had to be first hand and it appears that has never been the case.
So, as usual- I am confused about what we are arguing LOL
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 1, 2019 10:42:57 GMT -5
My bottom line is this:
If you are the President of the U.S. and you believe there is corruption (by your political opponents) then you use your own agencies to root it out. You don't solicit help from leaders of other countries.
Whether or not that is impeachable remains to be seen. I don't follow the reasoning that it is a security issue.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 1, 2019 10:44:18 GMT -5
I think Trump shouldn’t be impeached or an attempt made now because he will undoubtedly do something really, really stupid eventually and the public will be so sick of hearing about impeachment attempts.
Congress should just censure him though, that will really piss Trump off.
I think the Democrats want to start the investigation because they know some really good dirt is somewhere just waiting to be found.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 1, 2019 10:55:49 GMT -5
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Oct 1, 2019 11:00:38 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the controversial change was about whether or not whistleblower info had to be first hand and it appears that has never been the case. So, as usual- I am confused about what we are arguing LOL The other part is whether or not the form was just changed in August, the implication being that this rule was changed to allow this specific whistleblower’s complaint to be filed. See: Trump’s tweet from yesterday ( Or, Rich’s post where he brought this up (“Does it bother you at all that the rules for this "whistle-blowing" were just recently changed to allow for hearsay to be allowed?”). This is not true either. Nothing was just recently changed in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Oct 1, 2019 12:23:50 GMT -5
As I understand it, the rules were not changed. The form was changed. Could that timing have been related to this report? Maybe. But I can't be upset about that when the form changed just made it more accurately reflect the existing policy. (As I understand things.)
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Oct 1, 2019 12:46:48 GMT -5
As I understand it, the rules were not changed. The form was changed. Could that timing have been related to this report? Maybe. But I can't be upset about that when the form changed just made it more accurately reflect the existing policy. (As I understand things.) According to the IG statement, the form used by the whistleblower was the May 2018 one. Seems unlikely that this had anything to do with the whistleblower’s actions in Aug 2019. This is from the IG statement: “The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018,” (As I understand things!)
|
|
|
Post by justthinking on Oct 1, 2019 17:15:30 GMT -5
Tpatt100 said: I don't disagree. I think he is a vile human- but if we are going to impeach him it has to be based on facts beyond that. Impeaching a President is (and should be) a pretty big deal. Adam Schiff shouldn't be outlining the "essence" of Trump's call with the Ukrainian President in front of Congress. He should be quoting the transcript released by the WH verbatim. There is no need to interject his opinion or flower it up. www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/fact-check-adam-schiff-trumps-ukraine-call/index.html
Jeez, it's so blatant that even CNN can't provide cover for Schiff.
But you were okay with Barr summarizing the Mueller report even though he left out many significant details. I wonder why that is...
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Oct 1, 2019 18:13:02 GMT -5
As I understand it, the rules were not changed. The form was changed. Could that timing have been related to this report? Maybe. But I can't be upset about that when the form changed just made it more accurately reflect the existing policy. (As I understand things.)
Having read more, it is a very confusing mess. It does sound like the rules were not changed. The form clearly was changed and it may very well be because of this case. We'll probably find out more as additional information comes out.
However, the rules may be somewhat contradictory. One part of the rule says that second-hand information is acceptable for submitting the complaint. But another part says that second-hand information isn't sufficient for the IC IG to actually process the complaint.
|
|
|
Post by RichB on Oct 1, 2019 18:16:07 GMT -5
Jeez, it's so blatant that even CNN can't provide cover for Schiff.
But you were okay with Barr summarizing the Mueller report even though he left out many significant details. I wonder why that is...
Uh, what?
I'm confused by what one has to do with the other. Barr didn't do a "parody" or anything remotely close to what Schiff did - which is probably why I've seen absolutely no one (except you) attempt to defend it.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Oct 2, 2019 0:32:37 GMT -5
As I understand it, the rules were not changed. The form was changed. Could that timing have been related to this report? Maybe. But I can't be upset about that when the form changed just made it more accurately reflect the existing policy. (As I understand things.)
Having read more, it is a very confusing mess. It does sound like the rules were not changed. The form clearly was changed and it may very well be because of this case. We'll probably find out more as additional information comes out.
However, the rules may be somewhat contradictory. One part of the rule says that second-hand information is acceptable for submitting the complaint. But another part says that second-hand information isn't sufficient for the IC IG to actually process the complaint.
The whistleblower used the form from May 2018, which was the correct form in place at the time they made the complaint. Why would that be related to this case?
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 3, 2019 11:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 3, 2019 12:16:46 GMT -5
He is scary and dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by maurinsky on Oct 4, 2019 8:06:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Oct 7, 2019 7:31:50 GMT -5
Your link circled me right back to this thread?
|
|
|
Post by maurinsky on Oct 7, 2019 7:51:41 GMT -5
Weird. I must have copied the wrong thing!
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 9, 2019 20:33:47 GMT -5
"The whistleblower is not the story"
|
|