Well

[UCFKnight85]

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're easy to create by drawing connections between things. These can be highly compelling arguments even when there's no basis. I think a good example is data mining. If you mine a large set of data for correlations at say 95% confidence, then by definition, 5% of the correlations you find are false positives. So you dig through a data set and identify any-and-every possible connection that supports a pre-conceived hypothesis and string those together while ignoring all the other data that counteracts the hypothesis, or holes in the data that shouldn't be there.

Yet, they're almost impossible to disprove. I'm not saying the Whistelblower lacks bias or an agenda. Welcome to DC right? But identifying data points like "he was invited to a dinner that included Brennan, Comey, and Clapper" as notable information? When he worked in the White House for the CIA? I mean come on.That's like saying "former Burger King employee frequently attended events organized by Burger King while working at Burger King."

You guys familar with Bob Lazar? He's the guy that worked at Area 51 and claims a bunch of crazy alien stuff. His claims are non-verifiable. If you're going to believe his story, then you're going to need to assess his credibility.

If the Whistleblower was making Bob Lazar type claims - non-verifiable based on personal experience - then all this stuff matters because the entire case hinges on the credibility of the Whistleblower. But that's not what's happening here. You can question his motives and affiliations all you want, but his credibility is essentially irrelevant to the facts. So if you want to say this is a smart play politically to shoot the messenger - OK it probably is. But if you want to participate in a fact-based discussion on the merits of impeaching a President based on the facts as we know them, I think it's irrelevant.

The fact that him and Schiff met in private before a report was filed is damning. Especially given the fact that Schiff flat out lied about meeting him when asked point blank in a committee hearing.

Meeting the guy with the biggest agenda and most powerful chair in secrecy before going ahead with this is not a good look if you're a whistleblower who wants to have some credibility when this all comes out.

Unless he was assured by Schiff that meeting would never come to light, which is probably likely given that Schiff was lying about it. He probably figured no one would find out.

 

[Boosted87]

Why would the whistle blower testify when you have scores of people you can interview who were directly involved?

There's at least one decent argument for his testimony. Most of Bill Taylor's testimony was 2nd or even 3rd hand in terms if implicating Trump. The whistleblowers statement is very similar. Now, Taylor also had plenty of 1st hand knowledge of the broader situation as well. I'm not sure the whistelblower has any relevant 1st hand knowledge on the situation or not. However, being as he was in a position to gather this much 2nd hand information, he was probably involved (at least in peripheral way) in some part of this.

In other words, let's say this investigation started with some other initial source (pick anything). As part of the investigation, it seems reasonable that the whistleblowers name comes up as someone who can testify to corroborate other witness testimony, since he was being informed/briefed in real time.

I also don't think it's reasonable on the part of the whistleblower to expect to remain anonymous. That's just not realistic. Maybe taking down a Senator or Cabinet Secretary - but no way can you realistically expect that if you go after POTUS. Right or wrong just reality. The sooner he comes out publicly the better for Democrats. GOP operatives are going to make him a boogeyman and the further in front of that he can be the better.

 

[Boosted87]

The fact that him and Schiff met in private before a report was filed is damning. Especially given the fact that Schiff flat out lied about meeting him when asked point blank in a committee hearing.

Meeting the guy with the biggest agenda and most powerful chair in secrecy before going ahead with this is not a good look if you're a whistleblower who wants to have some credibility when this all comes out.

Unless he was assured by Schiff that meeting would never come to light, which is probably likely given that Schiff was lying about it. He probably figured no one would find out.

Source that he and Schiff met in private? I know a member(s) of his staff met with the whistleblower.

Regardless, your interpretation is the version you prefer but certainly not the only one and ignores a bunch of context. The whistleblower followed an internal process first going to CIA lawyers. They made a CRIMINAL referal to the Justice Department and it went nowhere. Should the whistleblower have went straight to the ICIG and bypassed Schiff? Probably. But who you know matters in life, right? So if you've got a contact in the staff of the Chairman of Committee that is responsible for oversight of the IC, that's not an unreasonable next step if you believe something is being swept under the rug.

Question his process all you want - but I assume his goal was for congress to investigate this matter. Guess what - they are. So while you might disagree with his real time decisions with the benefit of hindsight, the path he took seems to have accomplished his goal.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Source that he and Schiff met in private? I know a member(s) of his staff met with the whistleblower.

Regardless, your interpretation is the version you prefer but certainly not the only one and ignores a bunch of context. The whistleblower followed an internal process first going to CIA lawyers. They made a CRIMINAL referal to the Justice Department and it went nowhere. Should the whistleblower have went straight to the ICIG and bypassed Schiff? Probably. But who you know matters in life, right? So if you've got a contact in the staff of the Chairman of Committee that is responsible for oversight of the IC, that's not an unreasonable next step if you believe something is being swept under the rug.

Question his process all you want - but I assume his goal was for congress to investigate this matter. Guess what - they are. So while you might disagree with his real time decisions with the benefit of hindsight, the path he took seems to have accomplished his goal.

You're right, I don't trust anything that Adam Schiff touches given he used his Committee Chair to flat out lie about what was supposedly included in classified material during the Russia debacle, then flat out made up quotes to open a Committee Hearing that he stated came from the President that don't exist when this entire Ukraine stuff broke.

 

[DaShuckster]

Source that he and Schiff met in private?

Of course not. The only way 85 feels he can debate this sh*t is by making things up.

The whistleblower contacted a member of Schiff's staff to ask for advice on how to handle the situation. The staff member told the whistleblower to: 1) file a whistleblower report; and 2) get a lawyer.

Somehow that exchange has morphed in the minds of our little Trumpsters as an evil conspiracy. The only trouble is this elaborate "fabrication" has been verified over and over again by individuals directly involved in the Ukraine dealings in the Congressional hearings that have been held.

Oops. How are our Red Hats going to spin that?

 

[fried-chicken]

This dumbass talking point misses 2 small facts:

- Ukraine aid was turned on before this entire story even broke
- Ukraine aid was turned on without any public announcement or otherwise

Also I thought the "blackmail" piece was the visit to the WH. Now you're saying it actually was military aid. I guess the talking points are hard to stick by when you're going off things that Adam Dirtbag Schiff hand selectively gives you to outrage over.

Before the story broke but not before the request.

Ukraine did publicly announce in a press conference that they were investigating the case again.

Seems like Trump got everything he the US tax payers paid for and if it weren't for the whistleblower outing him for setting this all up, he'd be tweeting about Corrupt Joe Biden daily.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Of course not. The only way 85 feels he can debate this sh*t is by making things up.

The whistleblower contacted a member of Schiff's staff to ask for advice on how to handle the situation. The staff member told the whistleblower to: 1) file a whistleblower report; and 2) get a lawyer.

Somehow that exchange has morphed in the minds of our little Trumpsters as an evil conspiracy. The only trouble is this elaborate "fabrication" has been verified over and over again by individuals directly involved in the Ukraine dealings in the Congressional hearings that have been held.

Oops. How are our Red Hats going to spin that?

Again, this is utter bullshit and lies.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/

Saying "Schiff's staff" met with the guy and not Schiff is as disingenuous as it comes. A person comes forward claiming to have something to bring Trump down and you want me to believe that the slimiest Congressman in Washington doesn't personally involve himself? LOL. He's at least smart enough to have had his "staff" address it so he can deny it ever getting back to him.

He flat out lied about meeting (er, his "staff") with the whistleblower when asked repeatedly. It's all right there in that link.

Why is the guy lying about this if it was all above board and his "staff" did everything proper? You don't lie about things that you're 100% certain you're in the right about.

 

[DaShuckster]

This dumbass talking point misses 2 small facts:

- Ukraine aid was turned on before this entire story even broke
- Ukraine aid was turned on without any public announcement or otherwise

The Trump Administration released the money in August after lawmakers of both parties raised serious concerns over its delay (particularly because it was already a poorly-kept secret why the aid was being held up.)

 

[UCFKnight85]

The Trump Administration released the money in August after lawmakers of both parties raised serious concerns over its delay (particularly because it was already a poorly-kept secret why the aid was being held up.)

Ok, so it was released because Congress was pushing them to release it, not because Ukraine announced they were investigating Biden or because some story broke in the media. Got it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ukraine had reopened the investigation into Burisma and Biden earlier this year before biden announced his candidacy and apparently the State Dept was aware of it.

 

[DaShuckster]

Ok, so it was released because Congress was pushing them to release it, not because Ukraine announced they were investigating Biden or because some story broke in the media. Got it.

The WH took the highly unusual step of classifying the audio of the phone call immediately after Lt. Col Vindman went to the WH lawyer and shared his concerns.

Given the number of people who were involved in the call, it's no shocker that the rumor mill was swirling through Congress about the latest crazysh*t thing Trump had done. It was also no secret in DC circles that a whistleblower report was being filed.

The Trump Administration has repeatedly shown its happy to shoot itself in the foot. But this time they realized they needed to bow to the Congressional pressure on them.

 

[Crazyhole]

The WH took the highly unusual step of classifying the audio of the phone call immediately after Lt. Col Vindman went to the WH lawyer and shared his concerns.

Given the number of people who were involved in the call, it's no shocker that the rumor mill was swirling through Congress about the latest crazysh*t thing Trump had done. It was also no secret in DC circles that a whistleblower report was being filed.

The Trump Administration has repeatedly shown its happy to shoot itself in the foot. But this time they realized they needed to bow to the Congressional pressure on them.

You keep saying this but there is no evidence that it ever happened, or if it did happen it could be because there are other parts of the conversation that needed to be classified. We are supplying Ukraine with javelin missiles. If they talked about that, the conversation would need to be classified.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The WH took the highly unusual step of classifying the audio of the phone call immediately after Lt. Col Vindman went to the WH lawyer and shared his concerns.

Given the number of people who were involved in the call, it's no shocker that the rumor mill was swirling through Congress about the latest crazysh*t thing Trump had done. It was also no secret in DC circles that a whistleblower report was being filed.

The Trump Administration has repeatedly shown its happy to shoot itself in the foot. But this time they realized they needed to bow to the Congressional pressure on them.

This is simply another lie. It's no unusual at ALL to classify conversations between the PResident and other world leaders when there are topics raised that may require classification. I have listened to former WH aides from both Bush and Obama on NPR admit this and both Admins classified conversations all the time.

Gee, I wonder if sending weapons to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers may be worthy of classification?

You seem insistent on creating facts and presenting them as truth but I'll keep calling your bullshit out when I see it.

 

[DaShuckster]

You keep saying this but there is no evidence that it ever happened, or if it did happen it could be because there are other parts of the conversation that needed to be classified.

That might explain it, except that numerous people privy to the call have said that while the conversation was extraordinary in many ways, there was nothing 'classified' about it.

According to Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony, the audio of the conversation was moved to a top secret electronic file after he shared grave concerns with the WH lawyer.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is simply another lie. It's no unusual at ALL to classify conversations between the PResident and other world leaders when there are topics raised that may require classification.

More 85 bullsh*t if you believe the whistleblower:

“In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call,” the whistleblower wrote in his complaint. “This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

The whistleblower said that multiple White House officials told him that the rough transcript of the president’s call was put into a standalone computer system that is reserved for top-level intelligence information, not the computer system in which such transcripts are usually kept and distributed to Cabinet-level officials.

“Some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs,” which manages the highly classified system, the whistleblower wrote.

The whistleblower also said that he was told by White House officials that the Ukraine call was “‘not the first time’ under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically-sensitive—rather than national security sensitive—information.”

While the president’s private conversations are considered privileged, they are not always classified. Officials are not allowed to classify information just because it is politically sensitive or embarrassing, or because it covers up wrongdoing by anyone in government.

 

[Boosted87]

Ukraine had reopened the investigation into Burisma and Biden earlier this year before biden announced his candidacy and apparently the State Dept was aware of it.

Source? If it's Lutsenko saying he was going to investigate then that will be really interesting. He changes his story with the wind. Most recent was that he saw "no wrongdoing" regarding Biden/Burisma.

This story is maddeningly confusing. I try not to peddle in conspiracy so I'm hesitant to try and lay out what seems like a very possible "theory." But just go dig into the web of connections around Rudy in this whole mess. Sticking purely to what's known and been reported:

• Amb. Yovanavitch publicly denounces current anti-corruption efforts and calls for the firing of a particular prosecutor.
• Two weeks later, Lutsenko (Prosecutor General) does an interview with John Solomon via The Hill, where he claims Yovanavitch gave him a "do not prosecute" list.
• State Department denies this and a few weeks later, Lutsenko backtracks on the claim.
• Meanwhile, Rudy is trying to get Amb Yovanavitch fired/recalled by whispering in Trump's ear that she doesn't like him.
• Fruman and Parnas are oiling up US politicians and get Pete Sessions to write to Pompeo urging the removal of Yovanavitch.
• In the indictment, Fruman and Parnas are working with an "unnamed Ukranian official" in this effort. This official was Lutsenko.

This appears to be a back-channel where Rudy was trying to help Lutsenko by ousting Yovanavitch, who's becoming a major critic of his efforts. But why? What was Rudy going to get in return? Whatever it was would have blown up in April/May when Zelensky wins election.

Trump's biggest failing in this whole thing is going to be trusting Rudy to run this operation.

 

[UCFBS]

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're easy to create by drawing connections between things. These can be highly compelling arguments even when there's no basis.

You mean like a politically funded and initiated dossier that has been heavily debunked? And the theory that various people, like John McCain, were lying about their involvement?

I defended McCain, repeatedly, against Trump. And then ... we found out McCain lied.

I still cringe every time Trump speaks, and I refuse to vote for him. But yeah, there is a 'state' that is out to get him ... and it's the establishment. It's both the left and right too, not just the left.

Although the left is the one that has been trying to publicly discredit his election to the office.