That 2019 impeachment

[Alweysrite!]

Exactly.
He really, really doesn't get it. He's another one of these supposed pedo haters who almost seem to go a tad overboard ...

Swallow well is a pedo-hater also. These people project themselves a little too much on here.

 

[Delldude]

The articles don't deal with the substance of the whistleblower report, which was accurate.

It's what was left out and not presented to House investigators that is the issue.

 

[Marener]

It's what was left out and not presented to House investigators that is the issue.

What’s that, exactly?

 

[Delldude]

What’s that, exactly?

Where was the first hand evidence submitted in the 'complaint'?

 

[Marener]

Where was the first hand evidence submitted in the 'complaint'?

What difference does it make?

 

[Delldude]

What difference does it make?

A lot, legally. He claimed he had direct knowledge of the evidence then in the same report said he didn't.

NO FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE: The Intelligence Community Inspector General’s preliminary “investigation” into the whistleblower complaint relied on politicized actors and second-hand evidence. Newly declassified documents expose how IC IG Atkinson relied upon second-hand information from the self-declared “Democrat” whistleblower and two biased witnesses to justify his determination that the whistleblower compliant was of “urgent concern,” “appears credible,” and must be reported to Congress. IC IG Atkinson also ignored concerns by the whistleblower’s supervisor about a rushed complaint.

• The Whistleblower confirms he/she had no firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
  
  • In an initial form submitted by the Whistleblower, he/she claimed, “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President.”
• New witness interviewsreleased today show that IC IG Atkinson’s public claim that “other information obtained during [his] preliminary review…supports the complainant’s allegation” was false and hid the fact that neither the Whistleblower’s nor the key witness’ allegations concerning the President’s phone call were informed by direct, firsthand knowledge.
  • WITNESS 2 admitted that upon reading the transcript of the call he/she “would not have been able to get from ‘point A to Z’ the way the Whistleblower did” and described that he/she lacked the “granular detail” that the Whistleblower had to justify filing the complaint.”
  • WITNESS 2 admitted that he/she had to “read between the lines” of what was being said, and that his/her perception of quid pro quo “became clear” only “in hindsight.”
  • The Whistleblower’s superior, a senior officer in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), told IC Inspector General investigators that he/she, “did not like how the [Whistleblower] handled the filing of the report,” saying that he/she felt that he/she was “looped in right at the time of the crash.”
• IC IG Atkinson’s 14-day preliminary investigation was intended to assess apparent credibility, but instead became the basis of a flawed, mischaracterized account that House Democrats peddled to launch a sham impeachment, even though the IC IG never conducted a formal or complete investigation.
  • In his own words, IC IG Atkinson recognizes that his conclusions were based on a “preliminary investigation,” noting that “I haven’t done an investigation to determine whether they actually, in fact, took place…that all of the alleged actions actually took place.”
  • __________________
    • In October 2019, after the media began to report that the Whistleblower had spoken with Congress ahead of submitting the “Disclosure of Urgent Concern Form,” the Whistleblower called the IC IG to admit that he/she had, in fact, spoken with Congress.
      • IC IG Atkinson admits in newly-declassified testimony that his investigative team “did ask the complainant who else knew about the disclosure” and the complainant withheld from the investigative team, within the 14-day window, that he/she alerted HPSCI Democratic staff.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Exposes Conspiracy Used By Congress To Impeach President Trump | Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

www.dni.gov

 

[Marener]

A lot, legally

What is the “legal” difference?

 

[Delldude]

What is the “legal” difference

Doesn't look like it was followed here does it?

 

[Marener]

Doesn't look like it was followed here does it?

How so?

 

[Alweysrite!]

How so?

Seems like the whole impeachment was an illegal dishonest sham.

 

[Marener]

Seems like the whole impeachment was an illegal dishonest sham.

Fascinating how all you guys believe this even though you have no idea what you mean.

 

[Delldude]

Fascinating how all you guys believe this even though you have no idea what you mean.

The phone call wasn't a pressing concern it's how they deceived that was.

 

[Marener]

The phone call wasn't a pressing concern it's how they deceived that was.

Sounds like a difference of opinion.

That’s what this is all about?

 

[Delldude]

Sounds like a difference of opinion.

That’s what this is all about?

It's about intentional deception, you know that.

 

[Marener]

It's about intentional deception, you know that.

I know that Gabbard is a hack who doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

What intentional “deception”?

Like I said, it’s fascinating how much you believe without even really knowing what you’re saying.

 

[Delldude]

I know that Gabbard is a hack who doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Declassified material equates to a hack?

What intentional “deception”?

It's detailed in the linked articles.

Like I said, it’s fascinating how much you believe without even really knowing what you’re saying.

But you do.

 

[Marener]

Declassified material equates to a hack?

The problem isn’t the material. None of you ever read the material. The problem is how it’s described, which is wildly exaggerated and misleading. It gets even worse filtered through the hacks on this website.

It's detailed in the linked articles.

Which apparently you either haven’t read, haven’t understood, or are scared to discuss.

It’s very telling when you guys won’t say what you believe.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Fascinating how all you guys believe this even though you have no idea what you mean.

So what about it was honest and forthright. Convince me. Seems like when he released the transcript of the phone call it should have put your doubts to rest about Trump's integrity. You went ahead anyway with the Sham, you also started adding the lies.

 

[Marener]

So what about it was honest and forthright. Convince me. Seems like when he released the transcript of the phone call it should have put your doubts to rest about Trump's integrity. You went ahead anyway with the Sham, you also started adding the lies.

The summary of the phone call was consistent with the whistleblower report.

That’s what I don’t get about this little exercise.

 

[Delldude]

The summary of the phone call was consistent with the whistleblower report.

That's not the issue.