Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×

BARRYOSAMA

Past Booster
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    554

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BARRYOSAMA

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, swordfish said:

    https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/heres-the-likely-whistleblower-and-the-questions-he-should-answer/

    In the middle of Russia fever, the liberal press took a hectoring tone to any outlet that showed a glimmer of doubt. How dare any journalist not believe that President Trump is an agent of Vladimir Putin! Who would question the upstanding virtues of the FBI?

    Of course, we now know that the conspiracy theories were wrong. There was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

    And, moreover, the inspector general report proves that the FBI trampled over civil liberties and common sense in pursuit of the case. While idle conversation during a meeting with George Papadopoulos and an Australian official may have sparked the inquiry, Crossfire Hurricane, it was only because of outlandish gossip in a Democrat-funded opposition report, the Steele dossier, that the FBI was able to land a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Even as the agency found that Steele’s sources did not back up the dossier, that facts did not back up the dossier, they continued the red scare. When it came out that Page was an informant for the CIA, an FBI lawyer lied about it.

    Every suspicion of FBI agents was leaked to the press and printed without skepticism. Few questioned their methods.

    It is only now that the New York Times begrudgingly publishes an “analysis” that, oops, maybe this was “A Disturbing Peek at U.S. Surveillance.”

    Forgive us, then, for the sense of déjà vu when it comes to the impeachment hearings. This time, the press is near united in arguing that you shall not question the narrative of how this whole thing got started. Don’t you dare name the whistleblower. Don’t ask how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) might have helped him write his complaint. Or even that Schiff is lying when he says he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Or why Schiff is subpoenaing the phone records of his colleagues.

    This is the same Schiff, by the way, who in 2018 said that the Department of Justice’s warrants for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISAs, met “the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed.”

    Schiff had the same information as Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who found the exact opposite. So we know Schiff is a liar.

    Two years from now, will we find out the real story? It may not change either side’s view of impeachment, but isn’t that what the press does — try to find the truth?

    The whistleblower is most likely CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella.

    Journalist Paul Sperry reported his name in late October, saying that sources inside the closed-door impeachment hearings identified him. Ciaramella has put out no statement denying these reports. Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps. In a sign of how farcical this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats angrily denounced the “outing.” If you don’t know the man’s name, how do you know the man’s name?

    Politico’s Jack Shafer has eloquently argued that the press should name the whistleblower. It is not against the law — whistleblower protections are to prevent retaliation in the workplace and apply to his superiors, not the media. Yet while the press eagerly tried to out Deep Throat or the anonymous author of “A Warning,” they suddenly lack curiosity.

    They’ve also been hypocritical. In September, the Times reported the whistleblower was a male CIA officer who worked at the White House and was now back at the CIA. Why? Executive editor Dean Baquet said, “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.” A cynic might say they were trying to argue that the whistleblower was credible.

    But if that’s the argument, and if Ciaramella is the whistleblower, isn’t it also relevant that he, according to Sperry, previously worked with CIA Director John Brennan, a fierce critic of Trump, and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s political opponent and the crux of the impeachment inquiry? That he’s a registered Democrat and that he was — again, according to Sperry — accused of leaking negative information about the Trump administration and that’s why he was transferred back to Langley?

    What, if anything, did he leak? Did he work with Biden on Ukraine, apparently Ciaramella’s area of expertise? Did he know about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Who told him about the call, and why did that person not complain instead of him? How did Schiff’s staff help him tailor the complaint?

    This is only the fourth time in our history that a president has faced impeachment. Shouldn’t we know the answers to these questions now, and not in two or three years when the inevitable official reports and tell-all books come out? Why must we wait for the truth?

    Spot on.....

    image.gif

    Naming the whistleblower....just another distraction.

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted · Edited by BARRYOSAMA

    31 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

    Yes...I read the article.  Would you like me to send more that challenge the levels of depth alleged by the Dems?

    If you read it, you clearly didn't grasp what it said.

    It was written 11 weeks ago....10 weeks prior to the articles of impeachment that I was referring to and you were responding to.

    No I don't want you to send more that "challenge the levels of depth alleged by the Dems"....I don't even know what the hell that means.

    All I was saying is that the articles of impeachment are clear and concise.  Trump abused his power and tried to cover it up.

    You posted a link and claimed that CNN's legal analyst did not think the articles of impeachment were clearly laid out but the link had nothing to do with the actual articles of impeachment.

     

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-schiff-cnn-toobin

    CNN legal analyst has a differing take....

    That article was written 11 weeks ago...and specific to

    1) the the transcript of Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President where he abused his authority and tried to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden's while holding Congressionally approved military funds hostage

    and

    2) the White House and DOJ's obstruction of justice by not handing over said transcript when there was a "credible and urgent" inspector general's report.

    The fact that Toobin said there wasn't much juice has absolutely nothing to to with the articles of impeachment as it was specific to the handing over  of the transcript.

    Did you read the article?

     

    • Disdain 1

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, swordfish said:

    FINALLY Kudos to W82 for bringing this one home - Yep you are correct sir - Kinda like  the "abuse of power" argument the left uses that alleges the President "says he can do whatever he wants" when they always fail to note the context (every time he said it) was responding or referring without fail to the Meuller probe where the President does indeed have the authority to hire/fire whoever he wants in that capacity.

    See how that works........Scary stuff indeed........

    Unfortunately for Trump, he sure thinks he can do whatever he wants when he tried to bully the Ukraine into opening an investigation for a personal gain.  Then obstructing Congress' constitutional right to check and balance becomes a second high crime and misdemeanor.

    The IG report (Horowitz hearing and beyond......)

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, swordfish said:

     

    It is true that the IG investigation “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” of bias. But in his testimony Wednesday, Horowitz conceded that he could not rule it out.

    Horowitz also conceded that the conspiracy theory that Obama hired James Bond to spy on Trump COULD NOT BE RULED OUT.

    Silliest thing I've read today.

    The IG report (Horowitz hearing and beyond......)

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    34 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    You are correct - the report indicated there was no "documented or testimonial" bias.   

    It is true that the IG investigation “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” of bias. But in his testimony Wednesday, Horowitz conceded that he could not rule it out.

    Graham was more candid. “They had bias that reeked,” he said.

    They wouldn't give that up freely - even these low-level non-decision makers are smarter than that..  Wait until or if they are under oath and the threat of perjury hangs over their heads.......

    So the straight shooter says there is no bias and the Trump cuck says there is bias.  Hmm tough call.

    FBI agents are part of the executive branch....they will probably claim executive privilege like their boss.

    1984985556_51h8LETGW0L._SY336_BO1204203200_.jpg.37601149c0ff93f761e063e8477ed820.jpg

    The IG report (Horowitz hearing and beyond......)

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    49 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    Throwing the BS flag......

    Peter Strzok -  Former Chief of the Counterespionage Section,  led the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server, Deputy Assistant Director (one of several) of the Counterintelligence Division, led the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and worked on Robert Meuller's special council before being removed by the same....

    Yeah, low level non-decision maker....My ash......

    Had you read the Reuters article.....No bias.  Deflection and Distraction for the abuser of power and obstructor of justice.

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/12519-7

    Read for yourself - from the speaker's own transcript - December 7.

    "because all I hear from the press is that I move so swiftly that it’s like a blur going by.  This has been a couple of years – two and a half – since the initial investigation"

     

     

    Initial investigation in to Russian interference, not impeachment.  Jeez.  That investigation led to all kids of obstructionist behavior by the executive branch, which will obviously spark more investigation, i.e. the Mueller report.

    The impeachment started with the whistleblower detailing Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors.  Typical right wing whacko distortion and distraction.  Deep state....scary stuff

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    45 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    So she didn't say that?  Got a link disputing it?  It was in the same presser where she claims since she is Catholic, she doesn't hate the President........Try and look one up.....

    You the one making the claim using a bogus site.  Good lord you are gullible.

    The IG report (Horowitz hearing and beyond......)

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    Exactly - Horowitz couldn't get anything under oath from anyone.  So he reported what they (whoever he was investigating) told him.  (Surely none of them lied .....)

    They were low level non decision makers.  Because they were having an affair, Trump makes the juicy distraction.  The sheep eat it up and when the facts are revealed....it become a deep state conspiracy.

    All too predictable

    • Disdain 1

    The IG report (Horowitz hearing and beyond......)

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    That's exactly what they (Peter Stzrok, Lisa Page) TOLD  (not testified under oath) him (Horowitz) so it had to be true........Wink Wink.....

    The inevitable conspiracy theory.....wow what a shock.

    Appointed by Bush, Horowitz is a career straight shooter.  Some can't handle that and prefer lies.

    I'll cite Reuters as opposed to "AnalyzingAmerica.com"  lol

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-horowitz/doj-watchdog-michael-horowitz-is-a-career-straight-shooter-colleagues-say-idUSKBN1YD111

    Impeachment inquiry

    in Out of Bound Forum

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, swordfish said:

    https://www.analyzingamerica.org/bombshell-pelosi-admits-they-have-been-planning-impeachment-for-years/?fbclid=IwAR17Sy2GNK5mmm5KpFsEV2GA0QyiHC5m1apw7310JAKRA9ZPwYS7Q4zfafg

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the impeachment of President Trump has been years in the making.

    Speaker Pelosi: “All I hear from the press is that we’re moving so swiftly, that it’s like a blur going by. This has been a couple of years—two and a half—since the initial investigation.”

    Yet the  Articles of Impeachment are for a phone call that happened in April of 2019.........SF isn't great at math, but 2 1/2 years ago would have been early 2017......

     

    That's a real believable link. lol

×
×
  • Create New...