pee wee herman? now that's a loser.If you say so.
you're just an unvalued poster.Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
I killed this valueless thread. So there's value in that.
- eccieuser9500
- 10-01-2019, 03:00 AM
I killed this valueless thread. So there's value in that.
- friendly fred
- 10-01-2019, 07:00 AM
- gnadfly
- 10-01-2019, 07:34 AM
The govt needs to change the policy/form that allows one to "whistleblow" an "unwitnessed" event. Just too much abuse potential.
Never should have been allowed in the first place.
Never should have been allowed in the first place.
- TheDaliLama
- 10-01-2019, 07:45 AM
I believe its credible...so there for it must be true..
Quick...somebody slap me.
Quick...somebody slap me.
- rexdutchman
- 10-01-2019, 07:55 AM
Yeah, Credible anonymous witnesses ( courts don't allow ) sooooooooooooooo,
- nevergaveitathought
- 10-01-2019, 07:55 AM
The govt needs to change the policy/form that one "whistleblow" an "unwitnessed" event. Just too much abuse potential.
Never should have been allowed in the first place. Originally Posted by gnadfly
I feel that this "whistleblower" is just a leaker by any other name
its more and more evident that a cabal of ne'er-do-well operatives preplanned a set up of trump, waiting poised for some moment along with Schiff and their news media and others to hype a spun narrative
the time to the election was running short so they had to pick something and this was the best they could do
I wouldn't be surprised if the person agreeing to be the "whistleblower" from among the group is someone nearing retirement just in case
- dilbert firestorm
- 10-01-2019, 09:01 AM
has there been any instance where hearsay used as evidence that resulted in a conviction?
- dilbert firestorm
- 10-01-2019, 09:06 AM
How hard is it to believe the CIA can make a fake passport? Originally Posted by friendly fred
don't have a problem with that.
its brennans actions that is hard to believe that he did this. stupid as he is, didn't think he was that stupid to use a fake passport and he got caught.
obviously this never made the mainstream news, why make obama look bad?
- bambino
- 10-01-2019, 10:55 AM
Brennan should be sent back to Siberia where he belongs.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 10-01-2019, 12:43 PM
The govt needs to change the policy/form that allows one to "whistleblow" an "unwitnessed" event. Just too much abuse potential.
Never should have been allowed in the first place. Originally Posted by gnadfly
no it shouldn't. that would mean anyone could make false accusations without any evidence and the person accused is then guilty until proved innocent. which is exactly what the Democrats are tying to do. this is to try to sway voters against Trump, it was never a valid reason to impeach Trump.
the new "spin" is that the rules weren't recently changed, they were changed in may 2018. well they were changed, and it was done to facilitate this charade
I feel that this "whistleblower" is just a leaker by any other name
its more and more evident that a cabal of ne'er-do-well operatives preplanned a set up of trump, waiting poised for some moment along with Schiff and their news media and others to hype a spun narrative
the time to the election was running short so they had to pick something and this was the best they could do
I wouldn't be surprised if the person agreeing to be the "whistleblower" from among the group is someone nearing retirement just in case Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
pretty much. a pre-planned event. i hear that the whistle blower's lawyer .. who has direct ties to several democrats like Clinton and Schiff .. is claiming the safety of the leaker is at risk. don't be surprised if the Democrats try to have this person "testify" in private hearings under the guise of "protecting" him.
that sounds fair, right???
- Unique_Carpenter
- 10-01-2019, 01:05 PM
Ok, if he's a spy, which passport is his real passport. Seriously, shouldn't he use his work passport? His civie passport wouldn't get him a date.
- Munchmasterman
- 10-31-2019, 12:36 PM
False accusations? Your bullshit has been debunked numerous times but you keep saying it.
Who changed the rules in May of 2018? No one.
"We rated Trump’s claim False. Let’s review the ruling.
The basis for Trump’s claim was an article on the conservative website The Federalist that said the intelligence community eliminated a rule that would require whistleblowers to provide "direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings."
In reality, the current rules, in place since 2014, remain unchanged. Whistleblowers are allowed to provide first or second-hand information (or both).
What did change recently is a form for submitting a whistleblower complaint to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
The earlier version of the form, which had been in use since May 24, 2018, included a section titled, "First-hand information required" that stated the Office of Inspector General must be "in possession of reliable, first-hand information" to "find an urgent concern ‘credible.’"
In August, the Office of Inspector General changed the form because the office found that some sections "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint," according to a statement from the office.
In reality, the language on the original form about first-hand information referred to requirements for the investigation that follows the submission of a complaint — not a requirement of the complaint itself."
The whistleblower complaint in question was submitted on Aug. 12, 2019, using the earlier version of the form, according to the Office of Inspector General. The whistleblower stated on the form that "he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," according to the office."
https://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...stleblower-ru/
1 of the whistleblower lawyers is a registered repub.
False accusations are dealt with by the "credible and urgent" requirements. The claim gets checked. And it doesn't see the light of day until it's been vetted to the applicable standard. The idea anything can be claimed and submitted is a slight possibility. For someone to put their name on a total BS claim (that the person knows is BS) is extremely unlikely.
You've proven time and time again you'll ignore credible information and believe rush limbitch when he makes a claim that can't be confirmed anywhere or by a credible source.
You agreeing with published info from the source of the "rule changing agency" isn't required to confirm a fact.
Who changed the rules in May of 2018? No one.
"We rated Trump’s claim False. Let’s review the ruling.
The basis for Trump’s claim was an article on the conservative website The Federalist that said the intelligence community eliminated a rule that would require whistleblowers to provide "direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings."
In reality, the current rules, in place since 2014, remain unchanged. Whistleblowers are allowed to provide first or second-hand information (or both).
What did change recently is a form for submitting a whistleblower complaint to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
The earlier version of the form, which had been in use since May 24, 2018, included a section titled, "First-hand information required" that stated the Office of Inspector General must be "in possession of reliable, first-hand information" to "find an urgent concern ‘credible.’"
In August, the Office of Inspector General changed the form because the office found that some sections "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint," according to a statement from the office.
In reality, the language on the original form about first-hand information referred to requirements for the investigation that follows the submission of a complaint — not a requirement of the complaint itself."
The whistleblower complaint in question was submitted on Aug. 12, 2019, using the earlier version of the form, according to the Office of Inspector General. The whistleblower stated on the form that "he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," according to the office."
https://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...stleblower-ru/
1 of the whistleblower lawyers is a registered repub.
False accusations are dealt with by the "credible and urgent" requirements. The claim gets checked. And it doesn't see the light of day until it's been vetted to the applicable standard. The idea anything can be claimed and submitted is a slight possibility. For someone to put their name on a total BS claim (that the person knows is BS) is extremely unlikely.
You've proven time and time again you'll ignore credible information and believe rush limbitch when he makes a claim that can't be confirmed anywhere or by a credible source.
You agreeing with published info from the source of the "rule changing agency" isn't required to confirm a fact.
no it shouldn't. that would mean anyone could make false accusations without any evidence and the person accused is then guilty until proved innocent. which is exactly what the Democrats are tying to do. this is to try to sway voters against Trump, it was never a valid reason to impeach Trump.
the new "spin" is that the rules weren't recently changed, they were changed in may 2018. well they were changed, and it was done to facilitate this charade
pretty much. a pre-planned event. i hear that the whistle blower's lawyer .. who has direct ties to several democrats like Clinton and Schiff .. is claiming the safety of the leaker is at risk. don't be surprised if the Democrats try to have this person "testify" in private hearings under the guise of "protecting" him.
that sounds fair, right??? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- I B Hankering
- 10-31-2019, 12:47 PM
False accusations? Your bullshit has been debunked numerous times but you keep saying it.
Who changed the rules in May of 2018? No one.
"We rated Trump’s claim False. Let’s review the ruling.
The basis for Trump’s claim was an article on the conservative website The Federalist that said the intelligence community eliminated a rule that would require whistleblowers to provide "direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings."
In reality, the current rules, in place since 2014, remain unchanged. Whistleblowers are allowed to provide first or second-hand information (or both).
What did change recently is a form for submitting a whistleblower complaint to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
The earlier version of the form, which had been in use since May 24, 2018, included a section titled, "First-hand information required" that stated the Office of Inspector General must be "in possession of reliable, first-hand information" to "find an urgent concern ‘credible.’"
In August, the Office of Inspector General changed the form because the office found that some sections "could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint," according to a statement from the office.
In reality, the language on the original form about first-hand information referred to requirements for the investigation that follows the submission of a complaint — not a requirement of the complaint itself."
The whistleblower complaint in question was submitted on Aug. 12, 2019, using the earlier version of the form, according to the Office of Inspector General. The whistleblower stated on the form that "he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," according to the office."
https://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...stleblower-ru/
1 of the whistleblower lawyers is a registered repub.
False accusations are dealt with by the "credible and urgent" requirements. The claim gets checked.
You've proven time and time again you'll ignore credible information and believe rush limbitch when he makes a claim that can't be confirmed anywhere or by a credible source.
You agreeing with published info from the source of the "rule changing agency" isn't required to confirm a fact. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
It's quaint how you always have a Politifact dildo up your ass so that you can conveniently pull it out and spread your shit covered opinion like it means something. FACT: if the agency's form said "first hand" knowledge was necessary, it really doesn't matter what the fuck the law says, because the agency's POLICY met the requirements of the law.
It's trivially obvious that the POLICY was changed to accommodate Schitty's puppet, and every intelligent person understands what the fuck happened and why except for the Kool-aid sucking jackasses on the left. Fascinating how first hand knowledge was required when Odumbo was in office but was no longer necessary when Trump was handed the reins.
- HoeHummer
- 10-31-2019, 03:37 PM
How rude!
A sign of the climate in the US?
A sign of the climate in the US?