Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[GMDino]

(09-26-2019, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: This gets under my skin more than anything POTUS has said. I hope someone in the GOP condemns this. 

I've always been a fan of President Pence.

Trump to Pence: If I go down, you're going down with me.

Nikki:??? https://t.co/jt4HZUtbDC

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 25, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2019, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Without getting overly into the weeds, you can go with Trump being the reason this call was made public; I'll go with Congress. But either way I hate that it was and I hope folks are pleased with the slippery slope they decided to traverse; because I am not.

Congress demanded the documentation as it was required to be given to them according to the law. The White House decided to release it publicly instead of just giving the complaint to the appropriate individuals in Congress. This was likely done because the White House wanted to try to control the narrative surrounding the situation. By giving the information to Congress, they would investigate it and they would control the information about it. It was a political move by the White House just like having the public hearing in the House was a political move by Congress.

I, personally, just wanted the law to be followed. I'm okay with things happening behind closed doors like how this should have been handled. But it is a constant struggle to control the narrative in Washington right now thanks to the 24-hour news cycle.

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2019, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: This gets under my skin more than anything POTUS has said. I hope someone in the GOP condemns this. 

I've always been a fan of President Pence.

They won't condemn it. This sort of thing is par for the course with Trump and the vast majority of the GOP has remained silent on it while a tiny minority has found the comments "troubling." He has constantly attacked people who have been a check on his autocratic tendencies by leaking what has been going on. It wouldn't be any different with someone doing it properly because that is still an enemy to Trump.

[Dill]

(09-26-2019, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Without getting overly into the weeds, you can go with Trump being the reason this call was made public; I'll go with Congress. But either way I hate that it was and I hope folks are pleased with the slippery slope they decided to traverse; because I am not.

Why not go with the factual record, instead of framing the answer to this question as personal preference, vanilla or chocolate? 

"Slippery slope" might look a little better then too. Government finally becoming accountable.

[Dill]

Anybody been following Fox tonight?

Mark Levin lambasts the GOP Senate for not going after the corrupt Dems: subpoena their taxes, their family, their friends! He was waving the phone transcript in one hand and the whistle blower document in the other, going on about how different they were and one was only hearsay.

Rudy was on Laura Ingraham demanding, with even greater flair, that Biden be investigated. He claims it has been proven he received 9 million from the Ukraine. Laura had to keep calling him back to the Whistle blower document.

Speaking of which, she is ASTOUNDED that people are taking the "hearsay" seriously. Nevermind that it has so far proved an accurate guide to what happened.

So the developing talking points emerge--whistleblowing all hearsay, investigate the real culprit, Biden. Not Laura not Rudy not Sean not Mark not Lindsay can see anything like a quid pro quo in the phone transcript. Trump is doing EXACTLY what you would want a present fighting corruption to do.

Markedly absent from Fox discussions is the timeline, the cover up, involvement of Barr etc. Why hide the transcript if it were "perfect" or perfectly normal?

On MSNBC Schiff says the Ukraine conspiracy theory sources to Russia. I'd like to hear more about that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2019, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: Why not go with the factual record, instead of framing the answer to this question as personal preference? 

I'm unsure what you're saying here, but the transcript was released and made public. I hate that happened. I'll leave it to the individual to determine what motivated this. If it was "because Trump" I don't like it. If it was because congress I don't like it. 

I just don't like that it was made public, 

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2019, 12:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Anybody been following Fox tonight?

Mark Levin lambasts the GOP Senate for not going after the corrupt Dems, subpoena their taxes, their family, their friends. He was waving the phone transcript in one hand and the whistle blower document in the other, going on about how different they were and one was only heresay.

Rudy was on Laura Ingraham demanding, with even greater flair, that Biden be investigated. He claims it has been proven he received 9 million from the Ukraine. Laura had to keep calling him back to the Whistle blower document.

Speaking of which, she is ASTOUNDED that people are taking the "hearsay" seriously. Nevermind that it has so far proved an accurate guide to what happened.

So the developing talking points emerge--whistleblowing all hearsay, investigate the real culprit, Biden.

I've already applauded the whistleblower, but at least we can all agree his/her report was from hearsay. Can't we? 

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm unsure what you're saying here, but the transcript was released and made public. I hate that happened. I'll leave it to the individual to determine what motivated this. If it was "because Trump" I don't like it. If it was because congress I don't like it. 

I just don't like that it was made public, 

I don't either.

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've already applauded the whistleblower, but at least we can all agree his/her report was from hearsay. Can't we? 

Sure. But now it's corroborated hearsay. No longer "hearsay" as legally defined and excluded from trial proceedings. The IG didn't just skim the report and say "sounds good."

Doesn't matter now if the whistleblower claims an angel came to him in a wet dream and told him about the Trump phone call.

No wait, it does matter because now there is a series of "first-hand" observers whose testimony looks to further secure the "hearsay" report.

The lawyers and others who helped hide the transcript are now subject to prosecution for knowingly covering up a crime. Some of these will crack and likely provide more info about other secreted transcripts.  Trump stains those around him. Barr's legacy shattered now.

Surrounded by bad people in a dysfunctional staff, expect more missteps (lol WH talking points sent to Dems) as the pressure increases. Public support for impeachment reached 49% tonight, says Rachel Maddow.

[Bengalzona]

(09-26-2019, 11:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Well said. 

Off-topic here, but unfortunately since WW2 our government completely ignored that. Our elected politicians to the military industrial complex, which includes the CIA, deemed political interference as a one way street for their agendas. Interfering in Iran in the 1950s through the Obama administration, our own country has been guilty of this more than we will ever truly know. Something I would believe our forefathers did not envision nor wanted as well. 

You are correct, sir. Initially under the guise of "fighting communism" and later under the heading of "world's policeman", we have pretty much stuck our noses into the business of every country on the globe. And we have paid a high price for it. The roots of almost all "hate U.S." movements around the globe were nourished in those interventions.

But that intervention was us sticking our noses in their business. Them sticking their noses in our business is a different story. We have never even allowed that type of relationship with our close allies (Great Britain, Germany, Israel, etc.). That there is a big "no go". There is a reason why some of the strictest rules in Washington involve emoluments. Our forefathers saw that politicians could and would be tempted by officials from other nations, and that they would also be tempted to profit from relations with other nations. Big "no no" there.

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 01:12 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: You are correct, sir. Initially under the guise of "fighting communism" and later under the heading of "world's policeman", we have pretty much stuck our noses into the business of every country on the globe. And we have paid a high price for it. The roots of almost all "hate U.S." movements around the globe were nourished in those interventions.

But that intervention was us sticking our noses in their business. Them sticking their noses in our business is a different story. We have never even allowed that type of relationship with our close allies (Great Britain, Germany, Israel, etc.). That there is a big "no go". There is a reason why some of the strictest rules in Washington involve emoluments. Our forefathers saw that politicians could and would be tempted by officials from other nations, and that they would also be tempted to profit from relations with other nations. Big "no no" there.

Bad interventions, yes, Iran, Chile and Guatemala. Cambodia, Vietnam and Iraq the worst. And I agree with Millhouse the MIC has been/is a danger, a continuing problem.

But also that meddling protected central and western Europe, spread liberal democracy. Prevented WW III.  As worse alternatives now arise in central europe or continue in the Far East, we need to keep that in mind.

Stop electing bad leaders--that's always been the key. Watch corporations, and their influence on government.

[BakertheBeast]

(09-26-2019, 11:32 PM)Millhouse Wrote: "The Los Angeles Times released audio Thursday of Trump musing over the source of the content of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on which the whistleblower, in part, based his complaint.

“Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call. He never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is — they’re almost a spy,” Trump said in a recording of a private event on Thursday in New York. “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart, right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”






I think President Pence has an ok ring to it, though bit way too conservative in certain areas for my liking. But at least he would act Presidential for the next year.

Hypothetically, Say that magically the Repubs in congress found their testicles and voted to impeach the conman. The mannequin, Mike Pounce would then become president. If Pounce decided to run in 2024, do you think the GOP would allow primaries once again?  We all know why they are not having them in 2020.

[BakertheBeast]

(09-26-2019, 11:55 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Trump to Pence: If I go down, you're going down with me.

Nikki:??? https://t.co/jt4HZUtbDC

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 25, 2019

 

If Pounce became president it would be the first time in history that the presidents mother became the first lady.

[BakertheBeast]

I don't understand. The Fox cult and the vampire Rudy G are screaming "hearsay". If congress has the actual transcript of the phone call (not a summery of it), doesn't it expose what Trump said to that Ukraine guy? He either did it or he didn't. Not that it would keep the Trump cult from tripling down with their the Dem's are corrupt comebacks.

[Stonyhands]

(09-27-2019, 12:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Anybody been following Fox tonight?

Mark Levin lambasts the GOP Senate for not going after the corrupt Dems: subpoena their taxes, their family, their friends! He was waving the phone transcript in one hand and the whistle blower document in the other, going on about how different they were and one was only hearsay.

Rudy was on Laura Ingraham demanding, with even greater flair, that Biden be investigated. He claims it has been proven he received 9 million from the Ukraine. Laura had to keep calling him back to the Whistle blower document.

Speaking of which, she is ASTOUNDED that people are taking the "hearsay" seriously. Nevermind that it has so far proved an accurate guide to what happened.

So the developing talking points emerge--whistleblowing all hearsay, investigate the real culprit, Biden. Not Laura not Rudy not Sean not Mark not Lindsay can see anything like a quid pro quo in the phone transcript. Trump is doing EXACTLY what you would want a present fighting corruption to do.

Markedly absent from Fox discussions is the timeline, the cover up, involvement of Barr etc. Why hide the transcript if it were "perfect" or perfectly normal?

On MSNBC Schiff says the Ukraine conspiracy theory sources to Russia. I'd like to hear more about that.

I watched Fox tonight and the most recent few nights. You glossed over a whole bunch of information that explains why everything you listed above that they said is more likely true than this BS “whistleblower” complaint.

Like the fact that they rushed to an impeachment inquiry decision before they had the transcript and before they supposedly had the whistleblower report. A report by the way that has been analyzed over and over and is said not to have been written by any CIA analyst but from an attorney’s standpoint as a a legal brief type of document. One that several dems have had in there possession long before the transcript was released and the whistleblower complaint was formally released.

The transcript does not fit the whistleblower complaint narrative and the fake news msm is busy spinning this non stop. Because the alleged report didn’t have any firsthand knowledge of the actual calls only what they heard some people talk about. Which by the way you must have heard Nunes say that he deals with Whistleblowers all the time and the fact that this person DID NOT hear anything first hand and that they had a ClEAR BIAS it’s two big red flags. Forget the fact that the organizations that are behind all of this are funded by none other than George Soros and the whistleblower is going through the same attorneys that worked for Clinton and Schumer.

I‘m watching Fox News and thinking to myself how anybody could possibly seriously believe the dem’s narrative with all the evidence that is out there saying otherwise. Literally the entire impeachment case is based off of what one person heard other people talking about. Why didn’t the actual people involved file a whistleblower complaint?

Ukraine is where the entire BS Russian collusion started. If any of the stuff Levin, Ingram, Tucker, Solomon, Nunes, is saying is true doesn’t that bother any of you.

Doesn’t Hunter Biden’s role on a Board that he has zero experience or business being a part of on a Ukrainian company known to be under investigation and his dad’s known involvement in the firing of a prosecutor who’s sworn on a legal affidavit that he was in fact investigating that company before being fired raise any red flags.

My take is that some Dems caught wind that Trump was developing a tight relationship with the new Ukrainian leadership and that there’s some talks going around behind the scenes from the whitehouse and the DOJ as to the origination of the Dossier 1.0/Crowdstrike/Russian collusion hoax. The dems were probably most likely to rig the primaries so that Biden was the candidate despite several polls showing he’s not the front runner. Now lots of information is coming out of Ukraine regarding the false Russia collusion allegations which will very likely point to some Dems in DC. Additionally all of the details of the Biden corruption in Ukraine regarding his role in protecting his son are emerging as well. Just wait until they start investigating what happened in China.

[Stonyhands]

(09-27-2019, 07:03 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: I don't understand. The Fox cult and the vampire Rudy G are screaming "hearsay". If congress has the actual transcript of the phone call (not a summery of it), doesn't it expose what Trump said to that Ukraine guy? He either did it or he didn't. Not that it would keep the Trump cult from tripling down with their the Dem's are corrupt comebacks.

What’s not to understand? You do realize they were calling for an impeachment inquiry before the transcript was released correct? Pelosi announced the inquiry before the transcript of the call was released not the other way around. Formally they hadn’t received the whistleblower report either. Which by the way, if you read the transcript of the call in it’s entirety does not corroborate the whistleblower report...it in fact contradicts it. Which is easily explained....the whistleblower had NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS SAID. The very biased MSM is busy claiming a WH coverup. Again...why did the very people in the WH who were supposedly very bothered and had firsthand knowledge of the alleged events...which btw it would be their responsibilities to file a whistleblower report...why didn’t they file a report?

The impeachment inquiry decision was made when all that was allegedly known was that a CIA analyst in the WH filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that they HEARD second hand from other sources the President was allegedly using his position to withhold funding to Ukraine for military aide in order for Ukraine to dig up dirt on a potential opponent presidential candidate. That’s all HEARSAY.

Why is it the Ukrainian Prime Minister saying that he wasn’t pressured and that what the Dems are accusing Trump of didn’t happen hold any weight?

Or that there was zero quid pro quo in the entire unredacted transcripts. Trump released funds to Ukraine only after withholding a very short period only to try and pressure other countries into releasing funds they had promised Ukraine.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2019, 08:13 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: What’s not to understand?  You do realize they were calling for an impeachment inquiry before the transcript was released correct?  Pelosi announced the inquiry before the transcript of the call was released not the other way around.  Formally they hadn’t received the whistleblower report either.  Which by the way, if you read the transcript of the call in it’s entirety does not corroborate the whistleblower report...it in fact contradicts it.  Which is easily explained....the whistleblower had NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS SAID.  The very biased MSM is busy claiming a WH coverup.  Again...why did the very people in the WH who were supposedly very bothered and had firsthand knowledge of the alleged events...which btw it would be their responsibilities to file a whistleblower report...why didn’t they file a report?  

The impeachment  inquiry decision was made when all that was allegedly known was that a CIA analyst in the WH filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that they HEARD second hand from other sources the President was allegedly using his position to withhold funding to Ukraine for military aide in order for Ukraine to dig up dirt on a potential opponent presidential candidate.  That’s all HEARSAY.  

Why is it the Ukrainian Prime Minister saying that he wasn’t pressured and that what the Dems are accusing Trump of didn’t happen hold any weight?  

Or that there was zero quid pro quo in the entire unredacted transcripts.  Trump released funds to Ukraine only after withholding a very short period only to try and pressure other countries into releasing funds they had promised Ukraine.

The called for the impeachment hearing (or whatever) because the WH and this admin refused to turn over the whistleblower complaint.

They were breaking the law.

Once it WAS turned over along with a highly edited version of a 30 minute phone call it became obvious that it was the correct decision to move forward.

And the leaders in the Ukraine knew they had to talk Biden to talk to Trump.

The President of the United States asked another country to investigate one of his political rivals in a conversation where they were talking about giving aid to that country.  

The people around the President of the United States (allegedly) were hiding his conversations that they felt were...something.  Illegal? Wrong? Whatever their reasoning that needs looked into.

It's not alway the crime or accusation of the crime...sometimes it's just the cover up.

[GMDino]

Personally I think the bigger problem is some are so staunch in their support of Trump they want to talk about everything EXCEPT the reason this all started: The phone call and the cover up of the whistleblowers complaint.

[BmorePat87]

(09-27-2019, 07:54 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: I watched Fox tonight and the most recent few nights.  You glossed over a whole bunch of information that explains why everything you listed above that they said is more likely true than this BS “whistleblower” complaint.  

Like the fact that they rushed to an impeachment inquiry decision before they had the transcript and before they supposedly had the whistleblower report.  A report by the way that has been analyzed over and over and is said not to have been written by any CIA analyst but from an attorney’s standpoint as a a legal brief type of document.  One that several dems have had in there possession long before the transcript was released and the whistleblower complaint was formally released.  

An impeachment inquiry is just that, an inquiry. Knowing that the White House was refusing to release a whistleblower report that alleges that the president committed impeachable offenses is a solid reason to open an inquiry.

Quote:The transcript does not fit the whistleblower complaint narrative and the fake news msm is busy spinning this non stop.  Because the alleged report didn’t have any firsthand knowledge of the actual calls only what they heard some people talk about.  Which by the way you must have heard Nunes say that he deals with Whistleblowers all the time and the fact that this person DID NOT hear anything first hand and that they had a  ClEAR BIAS it’s two big red flags.  Forget the fact that the organizations that are behind all of this are funded by none other than George Soros and the whistleblower is going through the same attorneys that worked for Clinton and Schumer.  

It clearly does fit the narrative. Did you not read it?

Quote:I‘m watching Fox News and thinking to myself how anybody could possibly seriously believe the dem’s narrative with all the evidence that is out there saying otherwise.  Literally the entire impeachment case is based off of what one person heard other people talking about.  Why didn’t the actual people involved file a whistleblower complaint?  

Again... it literally fits the narrative. Did you not read it?

Quote:Ukraine is where the entire BS Russian collusion started.  If any of the stuff Levin, Ingram, Tucker, Solomon, Nunes, is saying is true doesn’t that bother any of you.  

None of the stuff they are saying is true. 

Quote:Doesn’t Hunter Biden’s role on a Board that he has zero experience or business being a part of on a Ukrainian company known to be under investigation and his dad’s known involvement in the firing of a prosecutor who’s sworn on a legal affidavit that he was in fact investigating that company before being fired raise any red flags.  

Hunter Biden had years of experience serving as a lawyer, lobbyist, and member of the board for companies before taking that job. Joe Biden wasn't the only person calling for the guy's termination as the guy was taking bribes to not investigate people. The Ukrainian government also continued to investigate the company and determined that there were no issues. This has been settled for a while.

Quote:My take is that some Dems caught wind that Trump was developing a tight relationship with the new Ukrainian leadership and that there’s some talks going around behind the scenes from the whitehouse and the DOJ as to the origination of the Dossier 1.0/Crowdstrike/Russian collusion hoax.  The dems were probably most likely to rig the primaries so that Biden was the candidate despite several polls showing he’s not the front runner.  Now lots of information is coming out of Ukraine regarding the false Russia collusion allegations which will very likely point to some Dems in DC.  Additionally all of the details of the Biden corruption in Ukraine regarding his role in protecting his son are emerging as well.  Just wait until they start investigating what happened in China.

If you believe these conspiracy theories, it may be time to turn Fox News off. 

[GMDino]

More good questions brought up at the hearing yesterday:  Why Rudy?  Does he have the necessary clearances? Does he need them as the President's "personal lawyer"? And why is the President's personal lawyer doing this at all?

The President’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani is implicating the US State Department in his illegal attempts to seek foreign interference in US elections at the President’s request. https://t.co/HQF4dqxPCh

— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) September 27, 2019