Welcome to America

[Leader of the Banned]

When Trump is impeached where do you put the asterisk? Should it be *Trump or Trump*?

 

[FdxUsmc]

The ICIC did determine it to be credible and did determine it to be of urgent concern. The DNI concurred under oath. They were suppose to forward it to DNI I believe within 5 days, but were told not to. I believe it took 14 days to get there. They had no credible explanation for that.

I really don't know when in the timeline the first whistleblower talked to House Intelligence Committee staffer, but it is SOP. I listen to credible sources such as ABC, NBC, NPR, and NYT so I can't really say where I got that.

I know relatively nothing about the second whistleblower other than he has direct first hand knowledge of the event. There are approximately 10 people who listened to the phone call, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Do you really think all of them will risk obstruction of justice and lying to Congress to protect the liar in chief?Do you think Guiliani is going to take the rap?

Oh, and please give me your appraisal of Drifter's video. Let's compare sources.

The project Veritas video? I think the video contents are and have been common knowledge for anyone who pays attention.

 

[PoppaJ]

Isn’t Project Veritas the group that broke the “selling of baby parts” video.? Of course it is. Instead of dealing with the content of the video, you chose to attack the credibility of the whistleblower and Pro

Now that is funny

Is this what you're blabbing about?
Planned Parenthood: Fact v. Fiction

Claim:
The undercover videos show Planned Parenthood trafficking in fetal tissue for profit in violation of federal law.

• Planned Parenthood engages in the “illegal sale of aborted baby parts.”[1]
• Planned Parenthood engages in “selling baby parts.”[2]

Facts:
The videos include no credible evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from its fetal tissue donation program.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood is paid for fetal tissue donations in violation of federal law.

• “Planned Parenthood is still receiving $50, $75, sometimes $100 per specimen per fetal part. So all of that is just straight up profit that goes to their bottom line.”[6]

Facts:
Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood is paid for fetal tissue donations in violation of federal law.

• “Planned Parenthood is still receiving $50, $75, sometimes $100 per specimen per fetal part. So all of that is just straight up profit that goes to their bottom line.”[6]

Facts:
Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood collects fetal tissue without obtaining proper consent in violation of federal law.

• “If there was a higher gestation and the technicians needed it, there were times they would just take what they wanted and these mothers don’t know and there’s no way they would know.”[18]

Facts:
There is no credible evidence that Planned Parenthood collects fetal tissue without obtaining proper consent.

 

[FdxUsmc]

Is this what you're blabbing about?
Planned Parenthood: Fact v. Fiction

Planned Parenthood executives and doctors admitting to illegally profiting from the sale of the fetal tissue of aborted babies.

At the time the videos were released, Planned Parenthood and its many defenders in the pro-choice movement repeated ad nauseam that the videos had been “heavily [and] deceptively edited.” This same line was often parroted uncritically by media outlets in their coverage of the videos.

In its ruling tonight, the Fifth Circuit not only affirmed the state’s right to terminate its agreement with Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also confirmed that the videos were undoctored. The court noted that an independent forensic firm’s review of the undercover footage found “that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited.” This directly refutes Planned Parenthood’s own false claim.

 

[Lake View Too]

The project Veritas video? I think the video contents are and have been common knowledge for anyone who pays attention.

But how do the whistleblowers compare? Zucker instructed his guys to stay on impeachment and said Fox News false journalism was ruining the country. That was the entire content of the 20 minute video. I believe whistleblower #1, a career CIA official, had about a 20 page written analysis of the incident with multiple corroborating sources. Which whistleblower was better?

 

[PoppaJ]

Planned Parenthood executives and doctors admitting to illegally profiting from the sale of the fetal tissue of aborted babies.

At the time the videos were released, Planned Parenthood and its many defenders in the pro-choice movement repeated ad nauseam that the videos had been “heavily [and] deceptively edited.” This same line was often parroted uncritically by media outlets in their coverage of the videos.

In its ruling tonight, the Fifth Circuit not only affirmed the state’s right to terminate its agreement with Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also confirmed that the videos were undoctored. The court noted that an independent forensic firm’s review of the undercover footage found “that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited.” This directly refutes Planned Parenthood’s own false claim.

I gave you a link to the findings of the investigation into the accusations made against Planned Parenthood. Tuff sht if you don't like the outcome.

 

[FdxUsmc]

But how do the whistleblowers compare? Zucker instructed his guys to stay on impeachment and said Fox News false journalism was ruining the country. That was the entire content of the 20 minute video. I believe whistleblower #1, a career CIA official, had about a 20 page written analysis of the incident with multiple corroborating sources. Which whistleblower was better?

Both are doing a public service. Too early to tell which one is better. We gotta wait for all the facts.

 

[PoppaJ]

We don’t know anything about the whistleblower being credible or not. We do know he DID NOT go through proper channels since he was in contact with Schiff prior to filing the complaint. And the whistleblower himself says it was second hand information.

If you distrust secondhand information immediately stop posting in this forum unless you heard it first hand from the source. Everything you post as fact is derived second or thirdhand.

 

[Bob Wells]

I knew I would lose Leader of the Lakeview Poppas with the occassional Jenksy, but there are plenty of reader/lurkers on here. Its for them.

It's all CNN employees detailing how obsessed Zucker is with Trump. You would definitely like it.

On a deeper level, it's about a major news organization, a member of the "fourth branch" trying to take down a sitting President.

Did you support the "fourth branch" when they went after President Nixon. I mean, they seemed to be reporting on it before his reelection. They also had an unidentified source, shall we say "whistleblower", everyone complains of bias, let's see how this all pans out.

 

[Lake View Too]

Both are doing a public service. Too early to tell which one is better. We gotta wait for all the facts.

Good, I’m glad you are in favor of a robust investigation and the press coverage that comes with it. Freedom of the press at work.