MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Aclion]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/p ... lower.html

That's not a leak.

What do you call it when you share confidential information with the opposition for a political purpose?

[Ifreann]

That's not a leak.

What do you call it when you share confidential information with the opposition for a political purpose?

That's not what happened. Whistleblowing isn't the same as leaking, and if this is your basis for believing that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats then I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

[Aclion]

What do you call it when you share confidential information with the opposition for a political purpose?

That's not what happened. Whistleblowing isn't the same as leaking, and if this is your basis for believing that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats then I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

[Vassenor]

That's not what happened. Whistleblowing isn't the same as leaking, and if this is your basis for believing that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats then I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

So because they didn't pull an Edward Snowden they're not real whistleblowers. Got it.

[Neutraligon]

That's not what happened. Whistleblowing isn't the same as leaking, and if this is your basis for believing that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats then I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

[Stamp Out Trump]

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

And he was a Trump appointee!

[Ifreann]

That's not what happened. Whistleblowing isn't the same as leaking, and if this is your basis for believing that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats then I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

You aren't even going to try and link this back to the claim you're trying to support, i.e. that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats?

Look, you aren't Trump. You aren't Giuliani. You aren't on TV as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. You're in the NSG Trump thread. You are achieving nothing with these attempts to attack Adam Schiff.

[Aclion]

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

Guess who that person is not - Adam Shiff. The fact that the leaker went to a congressman with a public vendetta against the president and not to the inspector general, as whistlerblowers are required to do should tell you all you need to know.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Not this way. Not the way that is saying "Other political side r ebil"

Sure it is, we've fought wars for this reason.

Based on there actions, not just beacuse someone said "other poltical side r ebil".

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

Guess who that person is not - Adam Shiff. The fact that the leaker went to a congressman with a public vendetta against the president and not to the inspector general, as whistlerblowers are required to do should tell you all you need to know.

Explain this personal vendetta.

[Neutraligon]

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

Guess who that person is not - Adam Shiff. The fact that the leaker went to a congressman with a public vendetta against the president and not to the inspector general, as whistlerblowers are required to do should tell you all you need to know.

If I recall correctly he went to Shiff to ask what to do. Given Shiff's position in Congress, this makes sense. He also submitted the report and the person found it credible. Also...if I recall we still do not know who the whistleblower is.

[Aclion]

Guess who that person is not - Adam Shiff. The fact that the leaker went to a congressman with a public vendetta against the president and not to the inspector general, as whistlerblowers are required to do should tell you all you need to know.

Explain this personal vendetta.

Public vendetta.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Explain this personal vendetta.

Public vendetta.

Explain that then.

[Aclion]

Public vendetta.

Explain that then.

I suggest you watch the news every few years Mr Sea lion.

[Neutraligon]

Explain that then.

I suggest you watch the news every few years Mr Sea lion.

For someone to not want to hear opposing arguments, the opposition has to make an actual argument. Since they are actually asking you what you are arguing, andyou are not explaining what the vendetta is you are talking about, calling them a sealion would be highly inaccurate. Given we still do not know who the whistleblower is that might be rather difficult for you to do.

[Aclion]

I suggest you watch the news every few years Mr Sea lion.

For someone to not ant to hear opposing arguments, the opposition has to make an actual argument. You have yet to make one since you are not explaining what the vendetta is you are talking about. Given we still do not know who the whistleblower is that might be rather difficult for you to do.

You seriously don't know anything about Adam Schiff?

[Neutraligon]

For someone to not ant to hear opposing arguments, the opposition has to make an actual argument. You have yet to make one since you are not explaining what the vendetta is you are talking about. Given we still do not know who the whistleblower is that might be rather difficult for you to do.

You seriously don't know anything about Adam Schiff?

Not everyone in this thread is from the USA, and so there will be those who are entirely ignorant of Adam Schiff.

[Ifreann]

For someone to not ant to hear opposing arguments, the opposition has to make an actual argument. You have yet to make one since you are not explaining what the vendetta is you are talking about. Given we still do not know who the whistleblower is that might be rather difficult for you to do.

You seriously don't know anything about Adam Schiff?

You seriously expect us to believe there's a conspiracy between Adam Schiff and unknown parties in the White House to leak Republican talking points to the Democrats on the basis of nothing more than "It's Adam Schiff!"?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

For someone to not ant to hear opposing arguments, the opposition has to make an actual argument. You have yet to make one since you are not explaining what the vendetta is you are talking about. Given we still do not know who the whistleblower is that might be rather difficult for you to do.

You seriously don't know anything about Adam Schiff?

I'm Dutch. I don't follow Adam Schiff's every breath.

So, if you're making an argument, you have to support it. Explain why you think Schiff has a public vendetta with Trump.

[Wallenburg]

There is a specific methodology to how whistleblowing happens. One of the things needed is review by another person who then determines if there seems to be a legitimate reason to bring attention to the problem. Guess what, that person determined there was enough that attention needed to be focused on the problem.

Guess who that person is not - Adam Shiff. The fact that the leaker went to a congressman with a public vendetta against the president and not to the inspector general, as whistlerblowers are required to do should tell you all you need to know.

The whistleblower went to the inspector general, as is required. You're just making shit up.

[Aclion]

Alright, Adam Schiff is a member of the House of Representatives(part of our legislature), and head of the house intelligence committee. This committee is supposed to be responsible for overseeing the federal intelligence agencies, but he has it spend most of it's time drumming up impeachment, something that's had the committee member call for his resignation; from the Russia investigation(which he then rejected the results of), to the Muller report(which he pushed to have released, dispite knowing this would be illegal) to working with the present Ukraine leaker, publicly talking about the content of the leak before the whistleblower complaint was made, and then lying to the committee about what was said in the phone call.

In short, he's the last person any legitimate whistleblower would go to.

You're just making shit up.

My source is the new york times.

[Gormwood]

Correct. Whistle blowing is when you have a legitimate concern and bring it up through the proper channel. That's not what this was. This is a group of people within the white house working with the democrat party in the pursuit of a political goal.

You aren't even going to try and link this back to the claim you're trying to support, i.e. that Adam Schiff is acting as a handler for someone in the White House leaking talking points to Democrats?

Look, you aren't Trump. You aren't Giuliani. You aren't on TV as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. You're in the NSG Trump thread. You are achieving nothing with these attempts to attack Adam Schiff.

He wants Trump sempai to notice him.

[The Black Forrest]

Alright, Adam Schiff is a member of the House of Representatives(part of our legislature), and head of the house intelligence committee. This committee is supposed to be responsible for overseeing the federal intelligence agencies, but he has it spend most of it's time drumming up impeachment, something that's had the committee member call for his resignation; from the Russia investigation(which he then rejected the results of), to the Muller report(which he pushed to have released, dispite knowing this would be illegal) to working with the present Ukraine leaker, publicly talking about the content of the leak before the whistleblower complaint was made, and then lying to the committee about what was said in the phone call.

In short, he's the last person any legitimate whistleblower would go to.

You're just making shit up.

My source is the new york times.

Source isn’t the problem. Your interpretation is a tad off.

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile Barr is going on about how Secularists are destroying America.

[Neutraligon]

Meanwhile Barr is going on about how Secularists are destroying America.

Where was the video taken?