The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Wait...the Democrats invented 401k’s/IRA’s/mutual funds/ETF’s etc?  Gee I had no idea. 
 

Please explain what Democrat policies make all these elderly people so rich. 

  100 years ago a Democrat Woodrow Wilson was President.  What was the matter with them back then that there was so much poverty amongst the elderly?  Retirements couldn't have something to do with post WWII prosperity with labor markets tight enough to force companies to offer pensions as enticements for people to work for them?  Why do the elderly need to work today if the Democrats did such a fantastic job?  The wife and I were just talking about this last night as a matter of fact.  The Democrats did not do such a great job that pensions were not raided by management of quite a number of US companies forcing many employees to work in their golden years.

[Hedge]

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

I just want to take a moment to proactively call Democrats hypocrites for not believing these women.

[Warren Zevon]

25 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here:

 

 

The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.

The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gary Busey

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.

The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.

 

 

It all comes down to what supports your preconceived notions.  

 

DR's going to call this disinformation by the deep state.  You accept it as an inviolable truth.

[row_33]

exposure is taking it a step more than being rude

 

[Nanker]

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

The Thompson was around in 1913?

1918. 

[Albwan]

35 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.

The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.

 

Because typing giant letters really makes it more "believable".

You're really one annoying individual. Bye now.

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, Foxx said:

trans, please do not be a sheep.

 

understand exactly what is being claimed that the FBI did, not what the spin wants to twist things into. also understand that you are attempting to be conditioned here so they can play you when it actually does come out.

 

They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. 

 

This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). 

 

All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It all comes down to what supports your preconceived notions.  

 

DR's going to call this disinformation by the deep state.  You accept it as an inviolable truth.

 

No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. 

 

 

 

The charge was never that he had his phones tapped. But that he was wiretapped -- which has a very specific meaning in Intel/Counterintel speak. 

 

We know he was. 

 

That's what the Page warrant was all about.

[John Adams]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. 

 

 

 

From the spinmaster of spinmasters, 

 

[Foxx]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. 

 

This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). 

 

All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. ...

i had concerns about the mentions in the report being allowed to read it for rebuttals. my concern was that, were they being compartmentalized with only the portions that mention them directly or if they had access to the complete report whereby they had complete knowledge of it. i can't remember now where i read it today but, i read something to the effect that stated they were only allowed access to portions that directly implicated them in some way. so, if indeed this is true, anything we are reading today is subjective at best and probably more likely just downright dubious. 

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i had concerns about the mentions in the report being allowed to read it for rebuttals. my concern was that, were they being compartmentalized with only the portions that mention them directly or if they had access to the complete report whereby they had complete knowledge of it. i can't remember now where i read it today but, i read something to the effect that stated they were only allowed access to portions that directly implicated them in some way. so, if indeed this is true, anything we are reading today is subjective at best and probably more likely just downright dubious. 

 

Correct. Only portions, and they had to sign an NDA saying they wouldn't discuss it. 

 

So do that math.

[keepthefaith]

43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. 

 

This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). 

 

All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. 

 

 

 

No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. 

 

 

 

The charge was never that he had his phones tapped. But that he was wiretapped -- which has a very specific meaning in Intel/Counterintel speak. 

 

We know he was. 

 

That's what the Page warrant was all about.

 

What this really says is that Obama and the IC and the DNC truly lacked confidence in H's victory.  If it were as in-the-bag as most of the media and pollsters pushed and the public thought, there would have been no reason to take any risk in spying on Trump.  If Obama and his very top people initiated all this, they have to be given credit for having a good read on how competitive this election was.  Or it was a hedge against Hillary imploding due to her health or email problems or the dislike for her or all three.  She imploded.  I was shocked on election night 2016.  A night I will never forget. 

 

The worst of it though has come since the election IMO.

Edited November 27, 2019 by keepthefaith

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

 

What this really says is that Obama and the IC and the DNC truly lacked confidence in H's victory.  If it were as in-the-bag as most of the media and pollsters pushed and the public thought, there would have been no reason to take any risk in spying on Trump.  If Obama and his very top people initiated all this, they have to be given credit for having a good read on how competitive this election was.  Or it was a hedge against Hillary imploding due to her health or email problems or the dislike for her or all three.  She imploded. 

 

The worst of it though has come since the election IMO.

 

On the surface I'd agree fully -- but there's one problem: 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

The above was forced them to make their formerly covert (and highly illegal) political spying more "official". What that doc lays out was exposed by the NSA head in the spring of 2016, and their pipeline to 702 data was cut off. Worse, they had to come up with legal explanations for their previous abuses of the query system (which they've still yet to do for over 75% of them btw). 

 

The reality is, they were spying on Trump (and everyone) illegally for most of 2015, and likely through the 2012/2014 cycles. Admiral Rogers caught them with their hands in the cookie jar and a justification was needed. 

 

Enter: "RUSSIA!"

 

Which, did not exist as a news story, or a grave geopolitical concern until after this was exposed. 

 

The spin "they had to cut corners because RUSSIA" will work, and has worked, on the low information people and the partisans. But it doesn't change the fact that what was exposed in that document predated Trump's dive into politics by years.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, dubs said:

2/3 house and senate, 3/4 the states to amend

 

obviously no, but it it doesn’t mean the document is defective, just the people who came after who are responsible for following it. 

Your first sentence doesn’t address the questions I asked you.

 

The second is wrong.  The document is quite defective.  The first step to solving any problem is to first identify all causal factors.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

[Koko78]

On 11/25/2019 at 1:53 PM, B-Man said:

POT COMMITTED: Schiff says Democrats will press forward despite lack of testimony from key impeachment witnesses.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that his panel will press ahead with its impeachment report even though key witnesses have not testified, in the latest signal that Democrats are moving swiftly in their probe of President Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine.

In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Schiff said the evidence against Trump is “already overwhelming,” although he stopped short of saying whether he would support impeachment himself.

Translation: The evidence is not overwhelming, and polls are trending against impeachment.

 

Interesting. I wonder if Nadler is retiring and is willing to be the fall guy for killing impeachment in the Judiciary Committee.

 

I hope not. The Senate trial is going to be an entertaining trainwreck for the Democrats.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Interesting. I wonder if Nadler is retiring and is willing to be the fall guy for killing impeachment in the Judiciary Committee.

 

I hope not. The Senate trial is going to be an entertaining trainwreck for the Democrats.

 

The hearings on the 11th will be a gauge the DNC leadership will follow closely, I imagine. It'll be the first time we've (the masses) seen the Senate in awhile, they'll have a juicy biscuit to tear into in Horowitz. And it doesn't hurt that one of the major subjects of said hearing will involve the inappropriate use of federal assets to spy on the political opposition... 

(Why, one would almost think it was set up this way, and Schiff/Pelosi walked right into a bear trap. But I digress)

 

If those go as well for Trump's administration as they should, based purely on what's in OS alone (and the hay the GOP Senators can make with it with 5 min of questioning/camera time) -- I have to think that would scare the pants off even a man as large as Mr. Nadler. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

On 11/27/2019 at 3:55 AM, Doc Brown said:

Like poor people, single mothers, uninsured, the VA, and the disabled.  Just horrible people.

 

Clinton never had the support for impeachment that Trump has right now.  Plus, I believe the PPP acronym involves polls.

 

That's a pretty broad spectrum of people, many of whom have the ability to change that situation on their own, so yeah, I do think someone who wants to steal from us at gunpoint to buy their support/subsidize their sloth, is a horrible person.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's a pretty broad spectrum of people, many of whom have the ability to change that situation on their own, so yeah, I do think someone who wants to steal from us at gunpoint to buy their support/subsidize their sloth, is a horrible person.

Many of those who don't.  Unless you're Warren Buffett you'll be okay.

[Rob's House]

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Many of those who don't.  Unless you're Warren Buffett you'll be okay.

 

How many? 10%? 40%? 75%? It's not a trivial question.

 

If you can't clearly define the need you are addressing (they can't) and the scope of your plan (they won't), then you don't have a practical or responsible proposal. 

 

And whether I'll be okay isn't the point.

 

Brushing aside the costs, which would be substantial, with the rationalization that "you'll be okay," (whatever that means), is not a serious or responsibly thought out position.

[Doc Brown]

10 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

How many? 10%? 40%? 75%? It's not a trivial question.

 

If you can't clearly define the need you are addressing (they can't) and the scope of your plan (they won't), then you don't have a practical or responsible proposal. 

 

And whether I'll be okay isn't the point.

 

Brushing aside the costs, which would be substantial, with the rationalization that "you'll be okay," (whatever that means), is not a serious or responsibly thought out position.

Which politician and plan are you referring too?

[Rob's House]

15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Which politician and plan are you referring too?

 

The post I quoted was made in reference to Sanders and Warren. 

 

I'm not sure how we got here though b/c I just realized what thread we're in and when that was posted.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

13 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The post I quoted was made in reference to Sanders and Warren. 

 

I'm not sure how we got here though b/c I just realized what thread we're in and when that was posted.

 

 

I was responding to a generalization that somehow Warren/Sanders are the worst kind of politicians because their political positions differ from their ideology.  The left would argue the worst kind of politician are those that pass policies that give the ultra wealthy huge tax breaks in return for cutting social programs. Using terms like "the worst" destroys any chance of a healthy debate about how much of a social safety net we should implement.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I was responding to a generalization that somehow Warren/Sanders are the worst kind of politicians because their political positions differ from their ideology.  The left would argue the worst kind of politician are those that pass policies that give the ultra wealthy huge tax breaks in return for cutting social programs. Using terms like "the worst" destroys any chance of a healthy debate about how much of a social safety net we should implement.

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

[GG]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

 

With regards to taxation generally I don't know that there is an example, but wrt income tax, the US had none until 1913 and it worked out pretty well.

[TakeYouToTasker]

23 minutes ago, GG said:

Just for its and giggles, what's the rationale for zero taxation, and where had that ever worked?

Honest inquiry?

[GG]

13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Honest inquiry?

Yeah, honest in a practical application of zero taxation with real life examples of where it has worked. 

 

Otherwise it's the polar opposite of the rationale for Communism. 

[GG]

41 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

With regards to taxation generally I don't know that there is an example, but wrt income tax, the US had none until 1913 and it worked out pretty well.

The argument is zero taxation, not zero income tax.  US had taxes and levies before income tax was enacted. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

Yeah, honest in a practical application of zero taxation with real life examples of where it has worked. 

 

Otherwise it's the polar opposite of the rationale for Communism. 

Lets start, then, with the income tax.

[GG]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Lets start, then, with the income tax.

Fine, do away with the income tax and replace it with a new consumption tax.  It's still a tax. 

Edited November 29, 2019 by GG

[snafu]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

All the more reason to dissolve the country.

 

There is no peaceful middle ground between “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and “all taxation is theft”.

 

Dissolve the country and replace it with what?

There will still be a large group of people who believe “billionaires shouldn’t exist”, and who believe “all taxation is theft” who will want to say how we’re governed.

 

Should be more like keep the country and replace the mentality of each branch to over engineer how citizens should live.  Just because someone gets to the Senate or the  House or the Bench or the Executive doesn’t mean that they must insist on pushing for change. That’s been a long time problem with our country. 

 

 

 

 

[Bakin]

1 hour ago, GG said:

Fine, do away with the income tax and replace it with a new consumption tax.  It's still a tax. 

This is a far preferable option. 
Consume - pay tax. 
Much better than Earn - pay tax. 

[Nanker]

But Lizzy wants to try something entirely new - wealth confiscation! Just take people's wealth each and every year. There's a lot more "wealth" in the nation than there is just income. 

[snafu]

10 hours ago, Bakin said:

This is a far preferable option. 
Consume - pay tax. 
Much better than Earn - pay tax. 

 

I don’t think it is preferable. Especially for people with fixed or low incomes.

 

[Bakin]

32 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don’t think it is preferable. Especially for people with fixed or low incomes.

 

I think it’s very reasonable. 
Spend big money pay big tax. 
Necessities of life can be taxed differently than other items. 

[B-Man]

Impeachment Makes the Best Case to Unseat Dems

by Andrew I. Fillat

 

Original Article

 

The recent sad spectacle of the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives is but the latest example of the disdain the political Left shows for both substance and process in a quest for power. If the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls is any indication, that power will be exercised by pursuing divisive and destructive policies that will hurt America for generations. But excoriating those policies will require volumes best authored elsewhere. Consider first the impeachment circus. Whether the “high crime” is called quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery, the premise is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

.