"Pelosi's 'fact sheet' on Trump impeachment released.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

READ: Pelosi's 'fact sheet' on Trump impeachment

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/466755-read-pelosis-fact-sheet-on-trump-impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office on Monday released a "fact sheet" detailing allegations against President Trump amid House Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry.

“President Trump has betrayed his oath of office, betrayed our national security and betrayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain,” the document argues.

It goes on to list what Pelosi's office calls proof of a "pressure campaign" and "cover up" by Trump related to Ukraine. The sheet includes quotes from Trump and the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint regarding Trump's July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he pressed for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden's son, Hunter.

Pelosi launched the House impeachment inquiry last month.

Read the full document provided by Pelosi's office below.

Direct Link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/431368353/Trump-Shakedown-and-Coverup#fullscreen&from_embed

Not too bad for public consumption I suppose. Most of it corroborates the WB Report. Which can also be seen in this source.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

36032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 36032 Posts

eh. nothing new really

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

True, I'm guessing this is for public to be more aware for those who didn't keep track. Could have been done better tho.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

36032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 36032 Posts
@zaryia said:
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

True, I'm guessing this is for public to be more aware for those who didn't keep track. Could have been done better tho.

pelosi note to self: don't have an intern write up your fact sheet

Avatar image for warmblur
warmblur

3567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#5 warmblur
Member since 2017 • 3567 Posts

Orange man bad sad.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@comp_atkins said:
@zaryia said:
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

True, I'm guessing this is for public to be more aware for those who didn't keep track. Could have been done better tho.

pelosi note to self: don't have an intern write up your fact sheet

This one is nice, but I think would confuse the public too much info:

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#7 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

Nope, nothing new and nothing that is the smoking gun.

So on we go again with the democrats just dividing the country more and more.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#8 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:
@comp_atkins said:
@zaryia said:
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

True, I'm guessing this is for public to be more aware for those who didn't keep track. Could have been done better tho.

pelosi note to self: don't have an intern write up your fact sheet

This one is nice, but I think would confuse the public too much info:

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

Avatar image for watercrack445
watercrack445

2116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#9 watercrack445
Member since 2017 • 2116 Posts

Show me the carfax.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

Look it was funny when you thought typing random sentences on a video game forum outdid the official statement of our ICA for years or even ICIG today, but you gotta relax with being wrong all the time.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

Just Security

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy. They are based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law. In review, Just Security has multiple writers who each have their own opinions. Some that I read fell just right of center and some just left of center. Overall, there is a nice balance with a very slight left lean and each article/blog is well sourced and presented with minimal bias. We rate Just Security least biased and factual. (D. Van Zandt 7/29/2017)

Source: https://www.justsecurity.org/

Most importantly can you tell me what is inaccurate in their report?

@Jacanuk said:
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

Nope, nothing new

You were factually accurate doing great at this point. But then you had to go ahead and add in your contrarian opinions.

Avatar image for npiet1
npiet1

2748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#12 npiet1
Member since 2018 • 2748 Posts

@zaryia: LOL using their own website to say there not left leaning is like a zebra calling itself a horse. Most media says they aren't bias, yet we know that's not true.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@npiet1 said:

@zaryia: LOL using their own website to say there not left leaning is like a zebra calling itself a horse. Most media says they aren't bias, yet we know that's not true.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

It's not their own website. Either way I would like to see what's inaccurate in that report.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

Some new info,

Private Photos of Indicted Donor Depict Ties to Trump, Giuliani

https://www.wsj.com/video/private-photos-of-indicted-donor-depict-ties-to-trump-giuliani/7EED4946-5201-4D70-A8FF-0516DCC1488E.html

Dating back to 2015, the private Instagram account of Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American indicted for illegal campaign donations, appears to show VIP access to President Trump and a close relationship with Rudy Giuliani. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday reports. Photo illustration: Adele Morgan

P.S.: A moderator has to really make a Trump impeachment Sticky thread.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

57103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#15 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 57103 Posts

Just give him time, and Trump will likely do something even more egregious. He still has no idea why hosting the G7 meeting at his own hotel is wrong.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#16 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

Look it was funny when you thought typing random sentences on a video game forum outdid the official statement of our ICA for years or even ICIG today, but you gotta relax with being wrong all the time.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

Just Security

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of U.S. national security law and policy. They are based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law. In review, Just Security has multiple writers who each have their own opinions. Some that I read fell just right of center and some just left of center. Overall, there is a nice balance with a very slight left lean and each article/blog is well sourced and presented with minimal bias. We rate Just Security least biased and factual. (D. Van Zandt 7/29/2017)

Source: https://www.justsecurity.org/

Most importantly can you tell me what is inaccurate in their report?

@Jacanuk said:
@comp_atkins said:

eh. nothing new really

Nope, nothing new

You were factually accurate doing great at this point. But then you had to go ahead and add in your contrarian opinions.

Why do you continue to use an unscientific private site as proof of your argument´s validity? "mediabiasfactcheck" is a privately owned one person entity whose methods are highly questionable and seem to be him walking into CNN and asking if CNN is far-left.

And let´s check their reputation

"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analys"

And since we do not live in opposite world, you should know the reputation of "just security" an NYC liberal university where liberal values are a core of any faculty member and student. NYC university has often been named as among the top liberal universities in the country.

Not to mention they state opinions and justice is not based off on random unsubstantiated opinions but on actual facts.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Why do you continue to use an unscientific private site as proof of your argument´s validity? "mediabiasfactcheck" is a privately owned one person entity whose methods are highly questionable and seem to be him walking into CNN and asking if CNN is far-left.

Why do you continue to use an an unscientific private citizen (you)? I saw no links showing JS is fake, unlike me you didn't even try. I do not care about your opinions. You were scientifically incapable of proving the JS was an invalid source to use here.

Please stop trying to make it seem like I'm posting Infowars or Breitbart, that is very disingenuous.

How about you man up and instead of finding completely fake excuses, refute their article:

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Just Security

LEAST BIASED

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

If you are so sure they are some kind of fake news Infowars of the left (they aren't), you should easily be able to refute the data contained within that lengthy JS Annotation (with citation).

Gonna' bet you tried but couldn't, so ran with this Trumpian "Fake News" angle.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

Worse than I though it was going to be,

William Taylor testifies about deep-seated push for Ukraine quid pro quo

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony-trump-054259

William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement, two of the sources said. Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.

Yikes!

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#19 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

Why do you continue to use an unscientific private site as proof of your argument´s validity? "mediabiasfactcheck" is a privately owned one person entity whose methods are highly questionable and seem to be him walking into CNN and asking if CNN is far-left.

Your opinions aside, at least I'm posting links. Your original deflection was bold and outlandish, but you provided no back up for it. More far left than FOX is far right? Link? Also if it's so biased why not easily refute the data contained within? Like even one sentence?

I disagree with your opinions that both of my links are invalid. You were incapable of directly refuting both links. I'll post both items again because you couldn't actually refute them:

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Just Security

LEAST BIASED

Factual Reporting: HIGH

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

If you are so sure they are some kind of fake news Infowars of the left (They aren't), you should easily be able to refute the data contained within that lengthy article.

Quote what was wrong and prove it was wrong, in either.

My opinion about a private one person's site? you mean you disagree with Columbia´s journalism review

The Columbia Journalism Review is an American magazine for professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news

So let´s see Trust Zaryia a random poster on Gamespot or trust "experts" hmmm.......... Mediabiasfactcheck is a non-peer reviewed site who has no accreditation behind it nor does anyone else back or have seen what scientific methods are behind its assessments.

As to the rest again you are linking to opinions and while those opinions come from industry people, they are still opinions and while anyone knows that the senate is not an actual court they won´t just remove a president because of "feelings".

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

My opinion about a private one person's site? you mean you disagree with Columbia´s journalism review

I do not disagree with CJR. I'm aware MBFC has issues, but they are superior than you. You have 0 facts to back up your invalidation of my JS link.

I'm talking about your fake opinion on Just Security. Sure, MBFC has issues, but it's sure as shit better citation than "Jackanuk TM".

You were not capable of showing that JS links is an invalid source. More importantly, you were not capable of showing the actual Annotation contained any false information.

@Jacanuk said:

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

Prove this false claim, with citation.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Are you going to refute the link already or are you going to just concede? Pick one and stop derailing.

@Jacanuk said:

So let´s see Trust Zaryia a random poster on Gamespot or trust "experts"

What experts said JS in not valid? Link? Columbia Review did not say JS is fake.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts
@Jacanuk said:

As to the rest again you are linking to opinions and while those opinions come from industry people, they are still opinions and while anyone knows that the senate is not an actual court they won´t just remove a president because of "feelings".

Fake News.

It's still evidence, by definition. 6 corroborating witness testimonies now. This kind of thing has resulted in convictions.

Senate won't remove because they are a GOP CULT.

William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement, two of the sources said. Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.

Insane.

Also,

Taylor also described the extent to which military assistance to Ukraine and a potential White House meeting with Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart were tied to those investigations, the source added.

Story Continued Below

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, characterized the testimony as a “sea change” that “could accelerate” the impeachment inquiry. Another lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, said it was “the most thorough accounting we’ve had of the timeline.”

“I’ll tell you, as a former State Department political appointee, in my experience the difference between career folks and political appointees is the career folks take very good notes,” Malinowski said, hinting that Taylor provided corroboration to back up his recollections.

Taylor arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday with the potential to deliver some of the most revealing testimony to date in the House’s impeachment inquiry. Weeks before Taylor testified, it emerged that he had deep concerns that Trump was possibly withholding military aid to the eastern European nation to pressure Ukrainian leaders to launch the investigations — one of which centers on an unsubstantiated claim about the origins of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Crazy shit.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#23 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:

I do not disagree with CJR. I'm aware MBFC has issues, but they are superior than you. You have 0 facts to back up your invalidation of my JS link.

I'm talking about your fake opinion on Just Security. Sure, MBFC has issues, but it's sure as shit better citation than "Jackanuk TM".

You were not capable of showing that JS links is an invalid source. More importantly, you were not capable of showing the actual Annotation contained any false information.

Prove this false claim, with citation.

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Are you going to refute the link already or are you going to just concede? Pick one and stop derailing.

@Jacanuk said:

So let´s see Trust Zaryia a random poster on Gamespot or trust "experts"

What experts said JS in not valid? Link? Columbia Review did not say JS is fake.

You got something completely wrong here, you can literally google NYC most liberal university and you will get a few hundred results as to their bias. Ranging from Politico to ThirtyThirty to Businessinsider.

Also, I have let it slide that you keep using an individual´s personal site as a source to back up your opinion, but not anymore until you can provide actual peer-review sources that credibly mention Mediabiasfactchcks as a credible and scientific source, no one should take anything you post from this individual seriously.

What you are doing here is equivalent to you making a site and posting that as a "fact"

Also, I never said invalid you keep misunderstanding or simply disregarding what I actually write, What I have said again and again and it seems to be a common debate with you, Opinions are opinions and not facts.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

You got something completely wrong here, you can literally google NYC most liberal university and you will get a few hundred results as to their bias. Ranging from Politico to ThirtyThirty to Businessinsider.

1. Please post a peer reviewed source stating Just Security is not credible. Your original post was absolutely fake and in no way countered the content of the article.

2. Please at least attempt to refute the contents within the Just Security Annotation. I will post it for a 4th time,

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

I will take your incapability of refuting the actual Annotation or actually giving proof of poor credibility as your concession, mind you.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#25 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

You got something completely wrong here, you can literally google NYC most liberal university and you will get a few hundred results as to their bias. Ranging from Politico to ThirtyThirty to Businessinsider.

1. Please post a peer reviewed source stating Just Security is not credible. This entire post chain is about Just Security. Your original post was absolute deflection that in no way countered the content of the article.

If you were not questioning the credibility of the source why bring up a fake opinion about their potential bias?

2. Please at least attempt to refute the contents within the Just Security Annotation. I will post it for a 4th time,

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

I will take your incapability of refuting the actual Annotation or actually giving proof of poor credibility as your concession, mind you.

1. That is not how this works Zaryia, you use a source so unless you suddenly think this is not opposite world,. you need to back up your claim that your source is credible.

2. I do not need to refute opinions since they are .................................................. wait for it................................................. OPINIONS.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

1. That is not how this works Zaryia, you use a source so unless you suddenly think this is not opposite world,. you need to back up your claim that your source is credible.

2. I do not need to refute opinions since they are .................................................. wait for it................................................. OPINIONS.

1. That is how it works. This is the real world. I have to give citation for my claims (something you almost never do) as I did, but I do have to give 2-3 more links proving that original citation is real right. You have to show my citation is fake. This is the reason why you were embarrassed by the entire forum when you said Russia did not interfere for 2+ years and I turned out right. Because I had valid citation and reliable sources. JS is one (of many) of the citations for my claims on Impeachment. You have to prove my citation is "fake" or invalid. That ball is in your court.

How can it even be fake when all that link does is compile info?

2. Cute, you think you know better than legal experts. What are your credentials again? Forget refute, Can you even contest any of it with your own legal analysis? Do you have ANYTHING?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#27 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

1. That is not how this works Zaryia, you use a source so unless you suddenly think this is not opposite world,. you need to back up your claim that your source is credible.

2. I do not need to refute opinions since they are .................................................. wait for it................................................. OPINIONS.

1. That is how it works. This is the real world. This is the reason why you were embarrassed by the entire forum when you said Russia did not interfere for 2+ years and I turned out right. Because I had valid citation and reliable sources. JS is one of the citations for my claims on Impeachment. You have to prove my citation is "fake" or invalid. That ball is in your court.

2. Cute, you think you know better than legal experts. What are your credentials again? Forget refute, Can you even contest any of it with your own legal analysis? Do you have ANYTHING?

1. No that is how it works, you in a debate claim something need to back it up, it´s as simple as that or didn´t you ever in high school take part in a debate?

And you have yet to provide any credible source as to any bias among the media, in fact the only source that has any scientific relevance is the one done by the Knight Foundation and Gallup.

Also, you seem to forget that I even though I didn´t have to , provided you with a peer source Columbia Journalism review.

2. Cute you think opinions are not opinions but facts because it comes from someone who you "respect" Go watch the legal "experts" on Fox and hear a completely different opinion or you could try to read the many many sources that says "NO SMOKING GUN"

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

1. No that is how it works, you in a debate claim something need to back it up, it´s as simple as that or didn´t you ever in high school take part in a debate?

And you have yet to provide any credible source as to any bias among the media, in fact the only source that has any scientific relevance is the one done by the Knight Foundation and Gallup.

Also, you seem to forget that I even though I didn´t have to , provided you with a peer source Columbia Journalism review.

2. Cute you think opinions are not opinions but facts because it comes from someone who you "respect" Go watch the legal "experts" on Fox and hear a completely different opinion or you could try to read the many many sources that says "NO SMOKING GUN"

1. You are possibly the worst debater at this site. You will forever be remembered as the guy who thought Russian Interference was fake. I refute you on a daily basis. Please do not insult me by asking if I ever did "high school debates".

JS IS my citation. It is the back up to my claims, as well as the various sources they link to. You have to prove it's fake. It's your turn to refute their statements. And you actually tried and you knew it was your turn to refute my citation or counter it:

@Jacanuk said:

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

But this was so stupid even you gave up on that.

2. Cute. You still think you know better than legal experts merely compiling data. Explain what you find improper in this

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

What did these legal experts state that you believe is incorrect or unlikely?

As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports

Can you disprove this?

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#29 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:

1. You are the worst debater at this site. You will forever be remembered as the guy who thought Russian Interference was fake. I refute you on a daily basis. Please do not insult me by asking if I ever did "high school debates".

JS Was my citation. It was my back up. You have to prove it's fake. And you actually tried and you knew it was your turn to refute my citation or counter it:

Lmao.

2. Cute. You still think you know better than legal experts merely compiling data. Explain what you find improper in this

What did these legal experts state that you believe is incorrect or unlikely?

As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports

Can you disprove this?

Well, again you slide through the debate without actually providing anything with substance.

But let me remind you of your claims

1. You claim JustSecurity an opinion site run by NYC is somehow backing up your claim that Trump is guilty,

1.1 You have yet to disprove that NYC the owner and operator of the site is not far-left despite it being named so by multiple sources herein Business inside, ThirtyThirty and numerous other highly credible sources.

2: you claim Mediabasefactchecks is a reputable site and have yet to provide any source to back this up

2.1 I, however, I have provided you with a highly credible source Columbia Journalism review

3. As to the whistleblower's complaint, nothing in it has been confirmed beyond the basic "Trump and Celensky had a conversation and talked about corruption"

So maybe you should just stick to what is above and actually provide actual facts and not opinions.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

167995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 167995 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

3. As to the whistleblower's complaint, nothing in it has been confirmed beyond the basic "Trump and Celensky had a conversation and talked about corruption"

No the whistleblower's complaint has...…...in fact......been confirmed and only someone hiding from the truth would continue along these lines.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Well, again you slide through the debate without actually providing anything with substance.

Jacanuk, why didn't you learn after the other dozens of times I beat you in debates that your opinion is pretty bad and usually incorrect?

Stick with facts please.

1. You originally claimed,

@Jacanuk said:

Thanks for linking a source that is so far left that it makes Fox news look like it´s a moderate source.

But never backed it up. You embarrassed yourself. Show me the source specifically stating JS is more far left than FOX is far right. Please show this source in your next post or admit defeat.

2. I don't think MBFC is the be all end all. I use it loosely. I just think it's sure as shit better than "Jacanuk Trash Opinion TM".

3. Columbia Review never said JS was not credible. Remember that is what we are discussing.

4. You were incapable of refuting anything in the actual link. The CRUX of the issue, you are deflecting this entire thread.

At least offer some sort of counter analysis. Your current standing is pure concession.

As the following analysis clearly demonstrates, an overwhelming percentage of the whistleblower’s complaint in Ukrainegate has been confirmed by U.S. government documents, witness statements, and independent investigative reports

@Jacanuk said:

3. As to the whistleblower's complaint, nothing in it has been confirmed beyond the basic "Trump and Celensky had a conversation and talked about corruption"

Wrong, you did not back this up with any proof or links. My link shows this is untrue. Please stop lying to everyone here.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:

Jacanuk, why didn't you learn after the other dozens of times I beat you in debates that your opinion is pretty bad and usually incorrect?

Stick with facts please.

1. You originally claimed,

But never backed it up. You embarrassed yourself. Show me the source specifically stating JS is more far left than FOX is far right. Please show this source in your next post or admit defeat.

2. I don't think MBFC is the be all end all. I use it loosely. I just think it's sure as shit better than "Jacanuk Trash Opinion TM".

3. Columbia Review never said JS was not credible. Remember that is what we are discussing.

4. You were incapable of refuting anything in the actual link. The CRUX of the issue, you are deflecting this entire thread.

At least offer some sort of counter analysis.

My link shows this is untrue. Please stop lying to everyone here.

Prove this claim right now and that the data in my link is false.

Stick with the facts? well so far you have not once actually brought up any facts, so i will stick with it when you do.

1: Go to Businessinsider or FiveThirty you know the sites you use often and see that the most liberal

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-liberal-colleges-in-america-2018-9#12-howard-university-washington-dc-14

2-3. Ok, that is your opinion but considering we are dealing with facts and not opinions, CJR´s assessment is negative so until you provide something that disproves that or you can back up Van Zandt's methods

So let´s take it again

Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.

Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.

Which means again you are using opinions to back up your claims. Don´t know how more clear it can be here.

And let´s stick to this right now and we can take the whistleblowers hearsay after this is done.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-liberal-colleges-in-america-2018-9#12-howard-university-washington-dc-14

Just Security is not mentioned once in that, nor does it state they are not credible. Heh. You're pretty bad at this.

Can you please show me a source saying JS is extreme far left or poor credibly/low-accuracy reporting?

@Jacanuk said:

2-3. Ok, that is your opinion but considering we are dealing with facts and not opinions, CJR´s assessment is negative so until you provide something that disproves that or you can back up Van Zandt's methods

CJR never said Jacanuk's opinion was better than MBFC. I am not saying MBFC is the be all end all. I'm saying it's sure as hell better than your opinion that Just Security is unusable. I do not disagree with CJR.

@Jacanuk said:

Which means again you are using opinions to back up your claims. Don´t know how more clear it can be here.

And let´s stick to this right now and we can take the whistleblowers hearsay after this is done.

Yes. I'm using evidence to back up my claims. Even the ICIG disagrees with the garbage you just wrote.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

You're going to have to understand, citation of expert legal analysis and officials such as the ICIG > You.

We've been through this with the ICA and Russian Meddling. Why didn't you learn then?

I'll give you 1 last try to refute,

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#34 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@zaryia said:

Just Security is not mentioned once in that, nor does it mean the content of the article are untrue. Heh. You're pretty bad at this.

Can you please show me a source saying JS is extreme far left or poor credibly/low-accuracy reporting?

CJR never said Jacanuk's opinion was better than MBFC. I am not saying MBFC is the be all end all. I'm saying it's sure as **** better than your opinion that Just Security is unusable.

Lie more?

Even the ICIG disagrees with the garbage you just wrote.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

You're going to have to understand, citation of expert legal analysis and officials such as the ICIG > You.

We've been through this with the ICA and Russian Meddling. Why didn't you learn then?

Ok, let´s see if you can follow this.

Who owns and operate JustSecurity?

As to your comment about Columbia journalism review, let´s take that one more time and try not to avoid it.

Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.

Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production.

We can keep doing this but I know you will move the goal post or just dodge it altogether.

And lastly, as I said we can progress to the ICIG angle which you seem to think gives creedence to the hearsay report where the "whistleblower" clearly states "I have no firsthand knowledge"

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10475 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

Ok, let´s see if you can follow this.

I was expecting you to post a link specifically showing Just Security was not a valid or credible source of info. Or that they had an extreme left bias and were not valid for using. Instead you did post nothing.

I expected too much from you. Direct Citation for your claims is something you have never been able to do well.

@Jacanuk said:

As to your comment about Columbia journalism review, let´s take that one more time and try not to avoid it.

I'm not saying CJR is wrong, Jackaliar. I'm saying MBFC is still a better source of citation than your sole opinion. Just Security is valid. No matter what you say.

P.S. Out of curiosity can you link me to the peer reviewed study from CRJ that states MBFC is not valid?

@Jacanuk said:

We can keep doing this but I know you will move the goal post or just dodge it altogether.

Move the goal post like you've been doing since post #8? This entire quote chain is absolute deflection from my link. You are incapable of confronting it (I'm sure you tried but your google failed you).

Heh. I've got your number man.

@Jacanuk said:

And lastly, as I said we can progress to the ICIG angle which you seem to think gives creedence to the hearsay report where the "whistleblower" clearly states "I have no firsthand knowledge"

Which doesn't make it any less credible. ICIG > Jacanuk. Don't make me do a credential comparison again.

As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant followed the law in filing the urgent concern complaint, and the ICIG followed the law in transmitting the information to the Acting Director of National Intelligence on August 26, 2019.

And as we now know, much of the report is confirmed:

Overwhelming Confirmation of Whistleblower Complaint: An Annotation

https://www.justsecurity.org/66475/ukraine-ukrainegate-overwhelming-confirmation-of-whistleblower-complaint-an-annotation/

No rebuttal to this other than "BU FAR LEFT!!!"111"? After all this time?

Concession accepted I guess.

P.S. Don't tell me "waaaah waaah I can't refute it cause bu bu biased and fake", I've already thought of several valid points you can say to soften/hurt that link (I usually do this when "Debating" people to know how to counter them next.). But you end up never hitting those points lmao.