So - is it Biden?

PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Midnightrider said:
There are an awful lot of maybes and ifs in that article, but even if it’s true it doesn’t change anything. He didn’t work ‘for biden’, he worked ‘for the cia and was assigned to the whitehouse/ukraine’. That’s the same role he supposedly held under trump. That’s hardly damning
Click to expand...

You see... this is how you operate. You completely mischaracterize the article by saying there a lot of "ifs' and "maybes". The article has not one "if" in it. The word "maybe" shows up in one sentence in the context of a quote from an administration official.

There are a lot of this:

"whistleblower had..." - a definitive statement

"The Washington Examiner has established..." - a definitive statement

"Intelligence Community's inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate" - a definitive statement

"... there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden" - a definitive statement

"...it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden" - a definitive statement

So, while you're fixated on "ifs" and "maybes" that aren't really there, you completely ignore the definitive statements against this WB. Typical you.
 
Bird Dog

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Midnightrider said:
There are an awful lot of maybes and ifs in that article, but even if it’s true it doesn’t change anything. He didn’t work ‘for biden’, he worked ‘for the cia and was assigned to the whitehouse/ukraine’. That’s the same role he supposedly held under trump. That’s hardly damning
Click to expand...
We have been reading ifs and maybes for three and a half years from CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, Politico, NYT, etc......why is it different now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
You see... this is how you operate. You completely mischaracterize the article by saying there a lot of "ifs' and "maybes". The article has not one "if" in it. The word "maybe" shows up in one sentence in the context of a quote from an administration official.

There are a lot of this:

"whistleblower had..." - a definitive statement

"The Washington Examiner has established..." - a definitive statement

"Intelligence Community's inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate" - a definitive statement

"... there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden" - a definitive statement

"...it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden" - a definitive statement

So, while you're fixated on "ifs" and "maybes" that aren't really there, you completely ignore the definitive statements against this WB. Typical you.
Click to expand...
Who are the people making this definitive statements? People who know just as much as you or I.
“There is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden” should be followed by ‘says a guy who is making assumptions and has no direct knowledge.’
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
Not saying it's incriminating to anyone. What I am saying is that getting posted to the WH comes as a result of both professional expertise/competence and a sense by the WH that you're a team player (i.e., see things the same way as the WH that's hiring you).

So loyalty develops. My "theory" (for lack of a better word) is that this person, still assigned to the WH, heard of something that put his/her/xer previous administration buddy (in this case, Biden) into potential political difficulty. A straw that broke this camel's back...?

In any event, the problematic portion in all of this is this CIA person putting politics ahead of his/her/xer service oath. To me (a personal thing, I admit) there is no greater "crime." It's, as ST:tNG's Worf would put it, "dishonoring." And I would argue, criminal.

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

who says that is true?

here’s the thing, for all we know this person is a W Bush holdover. We do know that team trump must have thought the person was a team player or he would have been ousted in the last 3 years. ‘If’ he is a career CIA analyst as has been reported I think it is reasonable to assume the WB is acting in good faith.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Midnightrider said:
Who are the people making this definitive statements? People who know just as much as you or I.
“There is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden” should be followed by ‘says a guy who is making assumptions and has no direct knowledge.’
Click to expand...

DIDN'T YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner, “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president."

Are you saying this CIA officer is lying? You think this CIA officer doesn't have connections and inside knowledge? This is another thing you do... pick and choose what you want to be valid and not. Just like you threw at me when I questioned the ICIG. In fact, now he's saying - AS A FACT - "that the whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate" AND "he had shown "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate." Now suddenly he's full of "ifs" and "maybes"

Let me know when your head stops spinning, so you can put a coherent retort together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
DIDN'T YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner, “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president."

Are you saying this CIA officer is lying? You think this CIA officer doesn't have connections and inside knowledge? This is another thing you do... pick and choose what you want to be valid and not. Just like you threw at me when I questioned the ICIG. In fact, now he's saying - AS A FACT - "that the whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate" AND "he had shown "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate." Now suddenly he's full of "ifs" and "maybes"

Let me know when your head stops spinning, so you can put a coherent retort together.
Click to expand...
Hes retired and he doesn’t imply any inside knowledge. He is assuming based publicly available information. That’s what the part you bolded means.

I’ve made no statements indicating the icig is full of ifs and maybes. You do have to read the entire statements though. Cherry-picking two tiny snippets doesn’t rely the findings of the icig.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Midnightrider said:
(a) who says that is true?

here’s the thing, for all we know this person is a W Bush holdover. (b) We do know that team trump must have thought the person was a team player or he would have been ousted in the last 3 years. (c) ‘If’ he is a career CIA analyst as has been reported I think it is reasonable to assume the WB is acting in good faith.
Click to expand...
(a) True, we don't know yet. But the individual's lawyers have done a good job of narrowing down the field.... So my sense is that the "guessing" is probably more correct than not.

(b) I can agree with your first assumption. But I'm less able to agree with your second; I can think of quite a few reasons why he wasn't "returned to service." It will be interesting to see the details once they come out.

(c) Given my interactions with the CIA over the years (and they were extensive) I don't think that's at all a good assumption.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPC
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
(a) True, we don't know yet. But the individual's lawyers have done a good job of narrowing down the field.... So my sense is that the "guessing" is probably more correct than not.

(b) I can agree with your first assumption. But I'm less able to agree with your second; I can think of quite a few reasons why he wasn't "returned to service." It will be interesting to see the details once they come out.

(c) Given my interactions with the CIA over the years (and they were extensive) I don't think that's at all a good assumption.

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...
I thought the going theory is the WB is CIA assigned to the trump whitehouse. When was he ‘not returned to service’?

I’ll be watching closely. If nothing else this is going to be interesting
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
This_person said:
Gotta grab a whiskey some time. I bet those stories are something.
Click to expand...


Yooper is probably a Single Malt Kinda Guy



MAMACALLAN EXCEPTIONAL SGL CASK 1683 RELEASE 13




Macallan 52 Yr
Balvenie 50 Yr




Dalmore Constellation 1966
Macallan Fine and Rare 1937





Tullibardine 1952
 
BOP

BOP

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
You see... this is how you operate. You completely mischaracterize the article by saying there a lot of "ifs' and "maybes". The article has not one "if" in it. The word "maybe" shows up in one sentence in the context of a quote from an administration official.

There are a lot of this:

"whistleblower had..." - a definitive statement

"The Washington Examiner has established..." - a definitive statement

"Intelligence Community's inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a "professional tie" to a 2020 Democratic candidate" - a definitive statement

"... there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden" - a definitive statement

"...it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden" - a definitive statement

So, while you're fixated on "ifs" and "maybes" that aren't really there, you completely ignore the definitive statements against this WB. Typical you.
Click to expand...
There is some wiggle room in a couple of statements above, verses absolutes, which is what I think of when you said "definitive."

Other than that, well done. A complete waste on Rump Rider, but still, "A" for effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top