Impeachment or...CIA Coup?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
2,039
536
243
48
Boulder, CO
#41
Yeah, maybe lecture the POTUS and his supporters about this and not the guy on a message board saying it sarcastically because it has been getting thrown around by the POTUS in a ridiculous manner.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me to address the guy on a message board parroting what he's seen/heard/read.

I also take "all people" to mean everyone, regardless of party, but maybe I'm wrong there.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,765
3,933
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#44
Says the guy who in this thread parroted the false talking point that the whistle blower statute was rewritten.
I'm assuming you have Google and know how to use it. It's an undebatable fact that the Whistler Blower law was changed 90 days before this most recent coup attempt.

Here's a few quotes if you're still to lazy.....

Conservative Daily News
"This ‘whistleblower’ complaint is a set up… plain and simple. And, it’s not just speculation. The intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement for “direct” information less than 90 BEFORE the new so-called ‘impeachable’ offence complaint was filed against President Trump. Sound like a coincidence? It’s not."

By Carmine Sabia at The Federalist Papers
The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump. The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.
 
Feb 7, 2007
357
78
1,578
Denver
#45
I'm assuming you have Google and know how to use it. It's an undebatable fact that the Whistler Blower law was changed 90 days before this most recent coup attempt.

Here's a few quotes if you're still to lazy.....

Conservative Daily News
"This ‘whistleblower’ complaint is a set up… plain and simple. And, it’s not just speculation. The intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement for “direct” information less than 90 BEFORE the new so-called ‘impeachable’ offence complaint was filed against President Trump. Sound like a coincidence? It’s not."

By Carmine Sabia at The Federalist Papers
The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump. The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.
Hmm, do I trust Conservative Daily News or straight from the Inspector General?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/inspect...ty-releases-statement-whistleblower-complaint
 
Apr 14, 2009
88
27
1,568
#46
You don’t need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine. According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former US Vice President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.

Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that “Russiagate” would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.

It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.

It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the US deep state.

In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing Donald Trump of being an “agent of the Russian Federation.” Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering his claim that Trump was a Russian spy – after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.

Former CIA director John Brennan accused President Trump of “treason” and of “being in the pocket of Putin” for meeting with the Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the US election. To this day there has yet to be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on “patriotic” Republicans to act against this “traitor.”

Brennan and his deep state counterparts James Comey at the FBI and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap Trump campaign employees.

Notice a pattern here?

Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a “whistleblower” complaint against the president over something he heard from someone else that the president said in the Ukraine phone call.

Shockingly, according to multiple press reports the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement that the whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change allowed hearsay or second-hand information to be accepted. That seems strange.

As it turns out, the CIA “whistleblower” lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.

The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower Ed Snowden. But she’s singing the praises of this fake CIA “whistleblower.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if “you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It’s hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort…or a CIA coup!
Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/
Asking the Ukrainian president to do him a favor to help him get reelected by smearing his political rival is against the law. It’s not a new law. It’s an impeachable offense. All the other stuff you hit on in your posed is Ball hockey.
 
Apr 14, 2009
88
27
1,568
#47
I'm assuming you have Google and know how to use it. It's an undebatable fact that the Whistler Blower law was changed 90 days before this most recent coup attempt.

Here's a few quotes if you're still to lazy.....

Conservative Daily News
"This ‘whistleblower’ complaint is a set up… plain and simple. And, it’s not just speculation. The intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement for “direct” information less than 90 BEFORE the new so-called ‘impeachable’ offence complaint was filed against President Trump. Sound like a coincidence? It’s not."

By Carmine Sabia at The Federalist Papers
The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump. The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.
It’s a lie. And I know how to use Google. They’re trying to find cover for Trump. He’s guilty as sin.
 
Feb 7, 2007
357
78
1,578
Denver
#48
Asking the Ukrainian president to do him a favor to help him get reelected by smearing his political rival is against the law. It’s not a new law. It’s an impeachable offense. All the other stuff you hit on in your posed is Ball hockey.
If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.

GOP is currently in the red zone.
 
Aug 16, 2012
1,833
995
743
56
#49
Asking the Ukrainian president to do him a favor to help him get reelected by smearing his political rival is against the law. It’s not a new law. It’s an impeachable offense. All the other stuff you hit on in your posed is Ball hockey.
Asking someone with authority in another jurisdiction to investigate potential crimes is not against the law, nor is it an impeachable offense. If he had said something on the order of what you "Schiff-lerized", maybe. But that dialog did not happen.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,357
7,778
1,743
Spring, TX
#50
People, all people, need to quit throwing around the word "treason" for political disagreements. It has a very specific definition in the Constitution and we are not at war. Even with Russia, Iran, and China, we have tense diplomatic relations, but we have do have diplomatic relations and are not at war with any of them.
treasonous racist.
 
Feb 7, 2007
357
78
1,578
Denver
#51
Asking someone with authority in another jurisdiction to investigate potential crimes is not against the law, nor is it an impeachable offense. If he had said something on the order of what you "Schiff-lerized", maybe. But that dialog did not happen.
If the asking was done by a private citizen without being registered as a foreign agent and without the proper security clearance it could be a crime. Hence why Giuliani now has a lawyer from the watergate era. We don't know what dialog took place in the other handful of meetings on the subject so your last sentence is in no way a given.

We do know the executive branch withheld the appropriated funds from Congress for some time. There are enough dots all along the way that are connected to investigate if the other dots can be connected. Hence why there have been formal investigation procedures started.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,765
3,933
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#52
[/QUOTE]
Asking the Ukrainian president to do him a favor to help him get reelected by smearing his political rival is against the law. It’s not a new law. It’s an impeachable offense. All the other stuff you hit on in your posed is Ball hockey.[/QUOTE]

Had he done what you claim then that might be a problem, however you are making the leap and the assumption that he did this. Read the transcript! There is no quid pro quo. You’re making the connection that it was to damage a political rival. There’s no proof of that other than your opinion. He wanted corruption involving’s Biden’s son investigated.....period. Are you saying you want this obvious corruption from a sitting Vice-President ignored who on record in a video bragged about withholding aid unless the prosecutor investigating his son was fired.

Just because you personally believe this was done to damage Joe Biden’s campaign doesn’t make it so. You need to stop getting your “truth” from fantasy telling people like Adam Shit-for-Brains!
 
Last edited:

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,765
3,933
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#53
I'm assuming you have Google and know how to use it. It's an undebatable fact that the Whistler Blower law was changed 90 days before this most recent coup attempt.

Here's a few quotes if you're still to lazy.....

Conservative Daily News
"This ‘whistleblower’ complaint is a set up… plain and simple. And, it’s not just speculation. The intelligence community secretly eliminated the requirement for “direct” information less than 90 BEFORE the new so-called ‘impeachable’ offence complaint was filed against President Trump. Sound like a coincidence? It’s not."

By Carmine Sabia at The Federalist Papers
The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump. The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.
Hmm, do I trust Conservative Daily News or straight from the Inspector General?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/inspect...ty-releases-statement-whistleblower-complaint
Thank you for proving my point. What does it matter whether it was days or months before the requirement was changed. For decades you had to have first-hand knowledge to make a whistle blower claim but not until Trump was president and the whacked out left started their multiple fraudulent campaigns to get rid of him was this requirement secretly changed. I guarantee you if the identity of the whistleblower is revealed (it is required by law that the president be able to face his accuser) it will be shown to be a political operative and a pawn of the Democrats.

Keep drinking the Koolaide, Ol’ Adam and Nancy are counting on you!
 

Pokey

Territorial Marshal
Sep 13, 2013
5,484
1,193
743
Left field
#54
Asking the Ukrainian president to do him a favor to help him get reelected by smearing his political rival is against the law. It’s not a new law. It’s an impeachable offense. All the other stuff you hit on in your posed is Ball hockey.[/QUOTE]

Had he done what you claim then that might be a problem, however you are making the leap and the assumption that he did this. Read the transcript! There is no quid pro quo. You’re making the connection that it was to damage a political rival. There’s no proof of that other than your opinion. He wanted corruption involving’s Biden’s son investigated.....period. Are you saying you want this obvious corruption from a sitting Vice-President ignored who on record in a video bragged about withholding aid unless the prosecutor investigating his son was fired.

Just because you personally believe this was done to damage Joe Biden’s campaign doesn’t make it so. You need to stop getting your “truth” from fantasy telling people like Adam Shit-for-Brains![/QUOTE]

You are not biased in the least. Lol
 

Pokey

Territorial Marshal
Sep 13, 2013
5,484
1,193
743
Left field
#55
Thank you for proving my point. What does it matter whether it was days or months before the requirement was changed. For decades you had to have first-hand knowledge to make a whistle blower claim but not until Trump was president and the whacked out left started their multiple fraudulent campaigns to get rid of him was this requirement secretly changed. I guarantee you if the identity of the whistleblower is revealed (it is required by law that the president be able to face his accuser) it will be shown to be a political operative and a pawn of the Democrats.

Keep drinking the Koolaide, Ol’ Adam and Nancy are counting on you!
When did Nixon meet Deep Throat? When did he face his accuser?
 
Feb 7, 2007
357
78
1,578
Denver
#56
Thank you for proving my point. What does it matter whether it was days or months before the requirement was changed. For decades you had to have first-hand knowledge to make a whistle blower claim but not until Trump was president and the whacked out left started their multiple fraudulent campaigns to get rid of him was this requirement secretly changed. I guarantee you if the identity of the whistleblower is revealed (it is required by law that the president be able to face his accuser) it will be shown to be a political operative and a pawn of the Democrats.

Keep drinking the Koolaide, Ol’ Adam and Nancy are counting on you!
Did you read the 5 page response? It was modified by a department led by a Trump appointee too. So sorry if I don't buy the victim card here.

Even if the old version was in place the current complaint would be in compliance (see below exerpt). The Intelligence Directer Trump put in place a month ago also vetted the complaint to be credible. Then Trump released the Memo and confirmed it further.

---
A previous version -- cited by The Federalist -- of the form that whistleblowers submit to alert the inspector general of the intelligence community of an "urgent concern" states that in order for the inspector general to determine that the concern is credible "the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information."
This does not mean that the inspector general would reject a complaint if it presented only secondhand knowledge, but that firsthand information would be needed for the complaint to be found credible and passed further up the chain of command.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,864
2,193
743
Where else but Stillwater
#58
Crazy Loony Tooners for the gangster in the White House!
You folks are either stupid or more stupid!
Fact! Trump is a whoremonger. fact Trump is a terrible businessman he went broke in the casino business. And every other business he’s dabbled in. Fact! Trump dodged draft in 65. Fact! Trump has cheated on all of his wives.
But if he’s your hero? Then good for you. It just shows your personal moral character. If you support this guy you’re just like him.
Voters had plenty of advance warning from Trump what kind of controversial president he would be, for starters, asking Russia for help during the campaign to find Clinton's deleted emails. Trump saying Mexico would pay for the wall sounded stupid without first getting Mexico's cooperation. Trump voters simply got what they voted for and will vote for Trump again even if there is a recession. For some, it was surely a vote against Clinton and willing to risk what came with Trump.

Yet, why not vote for Trump, if you have indulged in adultery, declared bankruptcy, sexually harassed women and lie numerous times even when the truth doesn't matter much?
 
Last edited:

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
26,757
13,757
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#59
Voters had plenty of advance warning from Trump what kind of controversial president he would be, for starters, asking Russia for help during the campaign to find Clinton's deleted emails. Trump saying Mexico would pay for the wall sounded stupid without first getting Mexico's cooperation. Trump voters simply got what they voted for and will vote for Trump again even if there is a recession. For some, it was surely a vote against Clinton and willing to risk what came with Trump.

Yet, why not vote for Trump, if you have indulged in adultery, declared bankruptcy, sexually harassed women and lie numerous times even when the truth doesn't matter much?
Because he hasn’t murdered people and is also not the “Don” of an organized crime syndicate