OtherGround Forums Ukraine "Whistleblower" Caught In First Lie! MAGA!

Edited: 9/26/19 7:31 PM
8/1/13
Posts: 19984

First of many I'm sure!

This coming from CBS News. If they are reporting it you know its a whopper!

 

'Whistleblower claimed counselor of the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the call with Trump and Zelensky'.

Well, he wasn't!

 

9/26/19 7:32 PM
10/4/18
Posts: 2704
Pedro and Lionsoul just screamed "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY"
9/26/19 7:33 PM
3/6/06
Posts: 29465
you must like him better now, liars are your favorite.
9/26/19 7:34 PM
8/1/13
Posts: 19985
TheRoguewrestler - Pedro and Lionsoul just screamed "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY"

LOL!

9/26/19 7:34 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 50026

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

9/26/19 7:35 PM
8/18/13
Posts: 19952
TTT
9/26/19 7:36 PM
8/1/13
Posts: 19986
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 

9/26/19 7:38 PM
8/1/13
Posts: 19987
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

Now that I think of it, its acutally lie number 2. He said Pres Trump discussed a quid pro quo on the call. Well, we all know that didn't happen also

9/26/19 7:48 PM
4/24/07
Posts: 39944
sicko - 

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 


So the defense is that the whistle-blower is ignorant to the actual conversation but still called the "whistle-blower"? 

9/26/19 7:52 PM
11/16/08
Posts: 16688

He was told that he was on the phone.  That's all that matters.  

9/26/19 7:55 PM
3/6/06
Posts: 29466
David@accu - 
sicko - 

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 


So the defense is that the whistle-blower is ignorant to the actual conversation but still called the "whistle-blower"? 


Awesome straw man bro!

9/26/19 8:00 PM
5/10/08
Posts: 48066

Ha!  The whistleblowers claims are irrelevant at this point.

We have all we need to know at this point IMO...

9/26/19 8:08 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12274
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....
9/26/19 8:11 PM
9/23/07
Posts: 8888
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 

9/26/19 8:23 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 50027
The Adversary -
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 

It's my understanding that there's a recording of the call that's kept. However I'd wager that the transcript is pretty close to the actual conversation. If it comes out that they intentionally put out a fabricated transcript, that'd ruin any administration 

9/26/19 8:27 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 50028
camicom -
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Agreed. Everything stated was second hand, or from public interviews/articles. Not exactly a whistle-blower in the traditional sense, more of a formal complaint based on rumors they believe are true 

9/26/19 8:33 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12275
The Adversary - 
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 


The white house does, they just gave this version out, still waiting on trumps promise to release the full version, not the what I remembered version.
9/26/19 8:34 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 12276
sicko - 
The Adversary -
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 

It's my understanding that there's a recording of the call that's kept. However I'd wager that the transcript is pretty close to the actual conversation. If it comes out that they intentionally put out a fabricated transcript, that'd ruin any administration 


No matter what is on the tapes there are plenty of people here to tell it's nothing or does not matter
9/26/19 8:37 PM
1/13/11
Posts: 22220
Josh -
sicko - 
The Adversary -
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 

It's my understanding that there's a recording of the call that's kept. However I'd wager that the transcript is pretty close to the actual conversation. If it comes out that they intentionally put out a fabricated transcript, that'd ruin any administration 


No matter what is on the tapes there are plenty of people here to tell it's nothing or does not matter

What tapes?  

9/26/19 8:41 PM
11/18/15
Posts: 4349
Josh -
The Adversary - 
Josh -
camicom - 
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 


You do know the transcript is not verbatim and missing pieces correct? Or are you debating this....

Who has the verbatim missing pieces and what are they? 


The white house does, they just gave this version out, still waiting on trumps promise to release the full version, not the what I remembered version.

post your source.  

9/26/19 8:42 PM
6/3/09
Posts: 13068

How do you know he wasn't told Ulrich Brechbuhl was on the line?

Edited: 9/26/19 8:47 PM
11/11/11
Posts: 8027
sicko -
camicom -
sicko -

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 

The whole point of the "whistleblower" is that he is credible

This is why him being a hearsay "whistleblower" is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Agreed. Everything stated was second hand, or from public interviews/articles. Not exactly a whistle-blower in the traditional sense, more of a formal complaint based on rumors they believe are true 

I don't know about you, but the whistleblower's version of the phone call was pretty much spot-on - and remember, he/she filed this complaint long before the rough transcript was released to the public. So credibility has been pretty well established already.

But hey, if the Legion of Trump Loyalists want to desperately cling to one minor inconsistency regarding who was on the call as proof the whole thing is a sham, I for one won't be mean and try to wake them up from their fantasy dreamland.

9/26/19 8:47 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 50029
David@accu -
sicko - 

Sorry, this one is rather tame. The whistle-blower said they were not on the call and reporting it second hand. I'll chalk this one up to ignorance and a mistake before jumping to the conclusion that it was intentional and malicious 


So the defense is that the whistle-blower is ignorant to the actual conversation but still called the "whistle-blower"? 

Yeah, that's been the issue the whole time. The reason the report wasn't sent to congress was because the person didn't have first hand knowledge, and therefore didn't meet the requirements for immediately notifying congress. Then when word got out, it caused an uproar that the executive branch was trying to protect the president. But I think you know all that. 

From your reply it appears that you believe I'm defending the whistle-blower completely, I'm not. I just feel that them being mistaken about one attendee to a meeting that they said they didn't attend themselves, is trivial compared to getting the accusation wrong.

So like I said, I'll chalk up getting one attendee wrong to a mistake, I don't feel that's where they're trying to be malicious

9/26/19 8:48 PM
3/16/06
Posts: 20196

Huh. It's weird that hearsay wasn't accurate. 

9/26/19 8:57 PM
9/3/18
Posts: 1045

What am I missing? If Trump becomes aware of what appears to be corruption from a government official, is he not required to act? What does it matter if it was an opponent or not. It's either true or not true. Biden is on tape bragging about it. I read the transcript has him asking for an investigation. He's advocating for transparency? What is wrong with that?