Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

[laylalex 7,300]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

To me the point was that this lawyer has a big political agenda.  Nothing wrong with that unless he is willing to sacrifice his client, but it should be known what biases folks have as it gives us an idea of their motivation.

But it doesn't mean that the lawyer necessarily brings his own personal political beliefs to bear in his representation of another person. That's putting his personal interests before those of his client which is a conflict of interest I think. It's silly to assume that no lawyer can have strongly felt personal political opinions without preventing them from performing his representation properly. I mean, if we're putting so much emphasis on what's an "opinion" and what's a "fact," why is this necessarily a "fact" (that the lawyer is somehow making up all this stuff to fit his own agenda) rather than just an "opinion"? 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-whistleblower-not-entitled-to-anonymity-hes-an-informant-acting-as-a-democratic-operative

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Gregg Jarrett: Whistleblower not entitled to anonymity – He’s an informant acting as a Democratic operative

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-whistleblower-not-entitled-to-anonymity-hes-an-informant-acting-as-a-democratic-operative

That literally says "opinion" in the URL. 

[Dashinka 24,740]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But it doesn't mean that the lawyer necessarily brings his own personal political beliefs to bear in his representation of another person. That's putting his personal interests before those of his client which is a conflict of interest I think. It's silly to assume that no lawyer can have strongly felt personal political opinions without preventing them from performing his representation properly. I mean, if we're putting so much emphasis on what's an "opinion" and what's a "fact," why is this necessarily a "fact" (that the lawyer is somehow making up all this stuff to fit his own agenda) rather than just an "opinion"? 

It does not mean the lawyer is not following his own personal political beliefs either.  Like I said, if the lawyer does throw his client under the bus, then he will have to face the consequences of the Bar, but there is nothing wrong with the public knowing more about this lawyer as it does help us understand potential motivations.

[Dashinka 24,740]

Just now, laylalex said:

That literally says "opinion" in the URL. 

Just like the opinions coming out of Schiff’s investigation?

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

It does not mean the lawyer is not following his own personal political beliefs either.  Like I said, if the lawyer does throw his client under the bus, then he will have to face the consequences of the Bar, but there is nothing wrong with the public knowing more about this lawyer as it does help us understand potential motivations.

Or you could stop seeing conspiracy upon conspiracy in every bit player in this? This guy is doing a job. He gets to have political beliefs. It doesn't mean that they are coming to bear here. Most lawyers do not want to risk their license on this stuff. 

[Dashinka 24,740]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Or you could stop seeing conspiracy upon conspiracy in every bit player in this? This guy is doing a job. He gets to have political beliefs. It doesn't mean that they are coming to bear here. Most lawyers do not want to risk their license on this stuff. 

Why is having more information about a left wing activist lawyer considered a conspiracy?  Based on this guys tweets, he has had it out for President Trump since day one.  Is it surprising he is in the middle of this circus?  I do agree, this lawyer would be stupid to not represent his client responsibly, but he may feel there is a more important end game worthy of risking everything.  Who knows, lawyers are.no more special than anyone else, especially when they are consumed by hatred.

[laylalex 7,300]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just like the opinions coming out of Schiff’s investigation?

What will make an "opinion" a "fact"? This is something I genuinely don't understand here. If someone says, this is what I observed, and these are the logical conclusions I'm drawing from this observation based on my experience working in X area, that seems like an "opinion" that has more weight than just "this is because I say it is." What is a "fact" when people can have such differing interpretations of events they experience and observe at the same time as others?

 

I don't mean to stray into philosophy here, but it seems like we're going there.

[Dashinka 24,740]

12 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What will make an "opinion" a "fact"? This is something I genuinely don't understand here. If someone says, this is what I observed, and these are the logical conclusions I'm drawing from this observation based on my experience working in X area, that seems like an "opinion" that has more weight than just "this is because I say it is." What is a "fact" when people can have such differing interpretations of events they experience and observe at the same time as others?

 

I don't mean to stray into philosophy here, but it seems like we're going there.

A great example is the testimony of William Taylor.  He was not part of the infamous call, has never talked directly to President Trump by his own admission, but said he felt there were strings attached to some aid.  Is that a fact, or an opinion?  Seems opinion to me, and reading through the transcripts that Adam Schiff has released, they are full of lines like “I thought...”, or “I felt...”, which seems to be opinion to me.  Heck, when Sondland said he actually spoke to President Trump, it was explicitly stated the Ukraine did not have to do anything to get the aid.  On top of that President Zelensky said explicitly there was no pressure put on him during the call, and the Ukraine actually got the aid in question without having to do anything political for it.  So it appears the House is pursuing a “thought crime” if it was a crime at all.  And if that is not enough, Taylor, Volker, and even Yavanovitch (in her case somewhat reluctantly), have testified that President Trump has provided more much needed military aid to the Ukraine than the past administration.  But as stated, impeachment is a political process and the Dems do control the House, so they can do what they want.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Like I said, I do not have any facts, I have only seen opinion.  So tell me what facts you have? 

You should know by now, and from past experience,  that you will never get a straight answer to a direct question.  The M.O. hasn't changed, only the moniker.

[90DayFinancier 910]

39 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

A great example is the testimony of William Taylor.  He was not part of the infamous call, has never talked directly to President Trump by his own admission, but said he felt there were strings attached to some aid.  Is that a fact, or an opinion?  Seems opinion to me, and reading through the transcripts that Adam Schiff has released, they are full of lines like “I thought...”, or “I felt...”, which seems to be opinion to me.  Heck, when Sondland said he actually spoke to President Trump, it was explicitly stated the Ukraine did not have to do anything to get the aid.  On top of that President Zelensky said explicitly there was no pressure put on him during the call, and the Ukraine actually got the aid in question without having to do anything political for it.  So it appears the House is pursuing a “thought crime” if it was a crime at all.  And if that is not enough, Taylor, Volker, and even Yavanovitch (in her case somewhat reluctantly), have testified that President Trump has provided more much needed military aid to the Ukraine than the past administration.  But as stated, impeachment is a political process and the Dems do control the House, so they can do what they want.

Hi did not "feel"  it, he related what Sondland told Yermak: " that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to persue the Burisma investigation." 

Previously conversations were just around a Whitehouse visit.

 

The only think or feel part is where Taylor thought the idea of connecting the investigation is came from. He thought that it came through Guliani.

Taylor warned Zelensky to not get involved in US elections.

 

Where did the idea of linking the investigation of Burisma to US aid come from?

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 24,740]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Hi did not "feel"  it, he related what Sondland told Yermak: " that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to persue the Burisma investigation." 

Previously conversations were just around a Whitehouse visit.

 

The only think or feel part is where Taylor thought the idea of connecting the investigation is came from. He thought that it came through Guliani.

Taylor warned Zelensky to not get involved in US elections.

 

Where did the idea of linking the investigation of Burisma to US aid come from?

 

 

So a feeling on a feeling.  Where did President Trump say it explicitly?  What eventually happened in the end?  This is just a recycled “Trump wanted to fire Mueller” narrative.

[laylalex 7,300]

This is not okay. Trump needs to be saying this is not okay. His sons who have been fanning flames on Twitter need to say this is not okay. It needs to be said because there are obviously people who are taking their cues from what is being put out there that it is somehow okay: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/a-ton-of-hate-mail-and-death-threats-follow-trumps-attack-on-whistleblowers-attorney/

 

Zaid points this out in the article and it bears repeating:

 

Quote

In the time since that tweet was posted, which was referring to lawyers serving as the force of good to prevent this president from doing harm to our democracy, I’ve probably represented more Republicans, including White House officials, than Democrats. This is nothing more than the continuing partisan deflection to desperately avoid discussing the substance of my client’s whistleblower complaint.

 

We need to ask ourselves -- where are these people getting the idea that death threats are an acceptable response to news events they do not like? Please, this is not a space for whataboutism, and talking about Obama and Clinton. What can be done constructively right now by people with megaphones loud enough to make themselves heard to say do not do this? It is not acceptable, and I don't think I'm being controversial saying that. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Hi did not "feel"  it, he related what Sondland told Yermak: " that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to persue the Burisma investigation." 

Previously conversations were just around a Whitehouse visit.

 

The only think or feel part is where Taylor thought the idea of connecting the investigation is came from. He thought that it came through Guliani.

Taylor warned Zelensky to not get involved in US elections.

 

Where did the idea of linking the investigation of Burisma to US aid come from?

 

 

Persue??  😳

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Persue??  😳

She's not a native English speaker.