Quote (cambovenzi @ Oct 5 2019 08:10pm)
Someone from the CIA reported hearsay after they changed the rules to allow him to do so, to report a phone call they didnt like with a foreign leader.
Thats not typically what whistleblowers are or do.
That aspect of the federalist article has been debunked. The law has always allowed whistle blowers with second hand information to report. The form was changed. And the whistle blower used the old form anyway.
Is a CATO institute guy credible enough to listen to? I'd recommend people use twitter for politics and follow people like this... it really sorts out the misinformation parroted by both sides.
https://twitter.com/normative/status/1178730363755139083I mean, if you want to take the position that a president's personal lawyer should be over in foreign countries pressuring governments to investigate his political opponents, alright. If you're cool with Trump pressuring them as well, alright. But any person with a triple digit IQ knows this is just a position you've taken because you're sympathetic to Trump. There's literally zero chance you would've had the same standard under a Hillary presidency.
Quote
Whats your position on actual whistleblowers and those exposing crimes?
Are you a big fan of Manning, Snowden or Assange?
Or is this support for 'whisteblowers' a new found and highly selective position because they are opposing someone you dont like?
Are James Clapper and John Brennan good guys for perjuring themselves and lying about what the government was doing?
Adam Schiff is the real hero here for daring to lead the way against evil trump, while repeatedly lying about the contents of classified information?
I don't know, are you in favor of all leakers? When (likely)White House officials leaked phone calls between Trump and foreign leaders in 2017, were you in favor of it? I wasn't. I don't support all whistle blowers or all leakers. I take it on a case by case basis. Assange leaking CIA hacking tools doesn't go into the same bucket as a CIA officer using the lawful whistle blower process to report the president(and his personal attorney) pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponent.
I didn't follow politics as closely back then. Schiff has done certain things which hurt his credibility, the most recent example being his denial that his team talked to the whistle blower before the complaint was filed(him lying was wrong, his staff giving advice to the whistle blower was not).
Quote
Where in the video or any of my posts do you see me Trump never does anything wrong?
Go ahead and point out the clear quid pro quo that you would have to be a Trump cultist to deny.
I'm not saying you suddenly believe in a bloated defense budget and arming Ukrainians because Trump does. That's not the point. It's just that you give him the benefit of the doubt in numerous scenarios, where had the same facts occurred under a president you weren't sympathetic towards, you'd have an entirely different reaction.
Quote
Ah so now its real but you like it and think its necessary.
Really incredible switch up there.
It's real, if you completely redefine what deep state actually means. Just like the coup Dave talks about is real, if you change the definition from a violent and/or illegal overthrow of a head of state, to a process outlined in the constitution as entirely legitimate and necessary in certain situations.
When you redefine terms, you lose credibility. Because we can't have real debate if we can't even agree on basic facts(like the definitions of words).
This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 6 2019 09:29am