The hypocrisy of dismissing claims based upon the political alignment of the claimant.

Probative of what?

Ok. So you just decided to ignore the fact that the whistelblower is not a witness. The only thing a whistleblower does is point. You follow the finger, if he's pointing into thin air, you ignore it. But if he's pointing at somethings....

I sense a feeling of desperation in these arguments coming lately from the right. It used to be that the right had to twist the facts in order to make their excuses fit.. But now the excuses don't even have anything to do with the issue.

 

He didn't mention the words "dirt" or "campaign". But let's be clear: Trump loyalists rely on the stupidity of the American people. That's the strategy, but I very much doubt that's going to work. Most Americans understand the language criminals use. They know exactly what they mean when they say things like "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" or "I need a favor, though". You're not gong to make them "dumber" by repeating talking points over and over.

 

Bias, is certainly a cause for concern, especially because there is so much of it these days. Too much of it has taken for all of it to be benign.

Investigate and make the details public and arrest wrong doers if there are any.

 

There are strict rules (laws) that define who can be a whistle blower and what they can say. Any Joe who fires off a complaint about some action does not get whistle blower status; he gets only complainer status, and the government won't protect him or give him the time of day.

 

If he didn't say "dirt" or "campaign" or even "opponent" then he did not say dirt, campaign, or opponent. Your argument has validity, though. I'd compare it to Mueller who never said "guilty" or prosecutable" or "sufficient evidence" but counted on the stupidity of the gladiators at the gate to fill in blanks that he could not say and run with it. It worked very well, too.

 

So many false things here. The whistleblower was not just blowing the whistle on one call. He was not just blowing the whistle on secondhand knowledge. No actual transcript of the call has been released. And there is plenty to be concerned about just from that "transcript."

 

It is the content of the conversation that matters, not the medium. Not everyone is as corrupt as Trump, and being more concerned about corruption being caught than the corruption itself reflects some really messed up priorities.

 

The whole episode is absurd. Everyone can read the transcript of the phone call which I did and I see nothing wrong with what Trump said. Yet there are two "whistleblowers" who are saying Trump said something "illegal". If the call is out there for all the world to see then exactly what are the whistleblowers exposing? This is more of the pattern of the democrats who keep making claims that Trump keeps doing illegal actions for the past 2.5 years. It's all the democrats have, just lots of smoke, because they can't run against him on the issues and certainly not the economy.

 

It isn't a transcript, this wasn't the only questionable call, and there's plenty wrong even with the so-called "transcript." Sorry, but those are the facts.

 

It's plain old wishful thinking and people working daily to produce an illusion to make it look like Trump has broken the law. Why don't you challenge Trump on his policies and fantastic record on the economy, getting better trade agreements for you, all the jobs created, removing us from unending wars, and the huge reduction in food stamps recipients. By the way, what happened to the 2-year illusion that Trump colluded with the Russians. This whistleblower illusion will end the same as the Russian hoax. The American are smarter than the dems realize and the people will return a good man to the White House in 2020. We are witnessing the dems lose their minds because they are losing their power. In a way it's sad.

 

No one who can read a graph can credit Trump for the economy. And your insistence on dodging shows which side has the facts. What would it take to actually get you to directly address any of the facts you quoted?

 

What would it take -- It would take you, most of the MSM, all the dems, and most of the talking heads, to admit there was no Russian collusion (as proven by Mueller's 348 page $30 million 2-year investigation report) and then apologize to the innocent man you folks attacked and hounded for 2.5 years. After that I will look at "the other facts" you think you have.

 

So another dodge and more proof you refuse to engage the topic. Plus you can't even get my party affiliation right. If you are going to join a debate and discussion forum, maybe try honest debate and discussion of the topic instead of running for the hills to change the subject

 

I made no mention of your party affiliation.

 

Irrelevant! The whistleblower has already said what he/she had to say.

Very significant how you guys can't find any way to defend Trump on this that might be even remotely regarded as rational. Looks like Schiff definitely struck gold. A Trump crime that not even Republicans in the Senate can ignore or deny.

 

Yep! Pretty much like Mueller who didn't say "Trump is a criminal" but simply explained what actions ad under which conditions they would constitute a prosecutable crime, and then showed how there was ample evidence that Trump had in fact met all the criteria.

Believing that just repeating "they didn't say the word 'criminal'" or "he didn't say the word 'dirt'" would convince anybody with moderate intelligence (and above) is not a sign of average intelligence (or above).

 

Which, I would assume you say, is why he used the explicit phrase "insufficient evidence." Ample vs insufficient: is that like some say tomato and some say tomäto??? But, hey, don't let reality spoil your reverie.

 

Actually, the phrase he used was "substantial evidence" Does Trump instruct his followers to interpret that as closer to "insufficient" rather than to "ample"?

 

Vetting is best done by the objective which are in short supply during these partisan times. We now live in a time where right and wrong are decided by political affiliation and perhaps it has always been that way. When a whistleblower is blowing the whistle on those we dislike the scrutiny we apply tends to be far different than the scrutiny we apply when the whistle is being blown on those we do like. Tribalism biases all that form an association with a politician or party.

 

When a whistleblower blows the whistle on those we like, we demand to know who they are and where their political allegiances lie. When a whistleblower blowers the whistle on those we like, we demand for their safety that their identity remain hidden.

 

Questioning whether or not party affiliation played a role in him blowing the whistle is one thing, but Trumpers have been claiming that him possibly being a democrat automatically makes him part of the BS "deep state" conspiracy. You know, the one where the CIA, Military intelligence,and the every else who has ever failed to support or disagreed with Trump are all trying to frame him?

 

Yet liberal sources report that the whistleblower #1 also has some first hand knowledge. Either way the claims need to be vetted.

 

No as the inquiry has just begun.

 

You're trying to hide behind a syntax mash. Mueller did say there was not substantial evidence needed to make a charge. That it the same as insufficient. It sure as hell isn't the same as ample.

 

That is truly hilarious! You're the one who brought up "the explicit phrase".... and you accuse me of hiding behind syntax?

Oh God!

There were like... two dozen different possible crimes by Trump mentioned in the Mueller Report. For some of them he said that he did not have sufficient evidenced, of course. But you would only need one obstruction of justice case to put him away with a 20 year maximum sentence. And Mueller gave four!

Which is remarkable, given the unprecedented obstruction that this whole investigation had to work under.