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

[6andcounting]

(11-15-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Prevention doesn't always work. A prevent defense doesn't guarantee success. Preventing getting sick by getting the flu shot doesn't mean you are guaranteed not to get the flu. My words weren't inaccurate.

Nobody who had first hand knowledge that would have been able to provide evidence against Trump was prevented from going. Republicans aren't keeping anyone from the stand who has info against Trump.  

Yet you said:

(11-14-2019, 09:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  And why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?

First you say, "Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't."

But then you come back and say that "prevention doesn't always work"

But remember you just clearly said, "(Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't."


In short, we aren't hearing from people directly involved because they are being prevented from speaking, but since prevention doesn't always work we aren't actually being prevented from hearing anyone who wants to testify against Trump.

[6andcounting]

(11-15-2019, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Instead of saying "I haven't heard that and couldn't find anything from a few different google searches", why not say "I disagree with the implication of here as they were not prevented, they're just being told by their boss the President not to do it" and then respond to his point by explaining why you think their testimony would be irrelevant anyways?

I  didn't know who or what he was referring to when he said there were people out there with first hand knowledge who weren't testifying because Trump and Republicans were preventing them from testifying. I was googling to find the names of the people (or at least the people in general if specific names weren't public) and found nothing. It turns outs that's because there are no names of anyone who was prevented. 

I started off my response to you with a "thanks" since your response cleared up the confusion between what he said and what I understand his words to mean.

[GMDino]

I wonder if this guy would take a whistleblowers complaint seriously.

AG Bill Barr: "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call 'The Resistance' and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch." pic.twitter.com/HJJMczuEpd

— The Hill (@thehill) November 16, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2019, 08:58 AM)6andcounting Wrote: Nobody who had first hand knowledge that would have been able to provide evidence against Trump was prevented from going. Republicans aren't keeping anyone from the stand who has info against Trump.  

Yet you said:



First you say, "Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't."

But then you come back and say that "prevention doesn't always work"

But remember you just clearly said, "(Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't."


In short, we aren't hearing from people directly involved because they are being prevented from speaking, but since prevention doesn't always work we aren't actually being prevented from hearing anyone who wants to testify against Trump.

Silly me, I suppose, for considering a president ordering executive branch employees not to testify/cooperate with the investigation as well as invoking executive privilege for certain ones to be preventing witnesses from appearing. I can't believe how silly it is to consider someone telling his subordinates not to do something preventing them from doing something.

[jj22]

(11-16-2019, 09:13 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I  didn't know who or what he was referring to when he said there were people out there with first hand knowledge who weren't testifying because Trump and Republicans were preventing them from testifying. I was googling to find the names of the people (or at least the people in general if specific names weren't public) and found nothing. It turns outs that's because there are no names of anyone who was prevented. 

I started off my response to you with a "thanks" since your response cleared up the confusion between what he said and what I understand his words to mean.

So you know nothing about the state department blocking testimonies?

You've never heard of the name Rudy? Or Barr? Or any of the key players named in the memo of the call?

With this lack of knowledge (or ability to google), how can we trust anything you say? The credibility obviously is lacking.

If you are fine with the President needing help from foreign counties to win an election just say so, but the spin doesn't work in this forum as you are finding out.

In the mean time reading how Trump is furious with Pompeo for not doing a better job stopping those who bravely ignored the order and have testified anyway.

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 01:31 PM)jj22 Wrote: So you know nothing about the state department blocking testimonies?

You've never heard of the name Rudy? Or Barr? Or any of the key players named in the memo of the call?

With this lack of knowledge (or ability to google), how can we trust anything you say? The credibility obviously is lacking.

If you are fine with the President needing help from foreign counties to win an election just say so, but the spin doesn't work in this forum as you are finding out.

In the mean time reading how Trump is furious with Pompeo for not doing a better job stopping those who bravely ignored the order and have testified anyway.

I heard that all these ambassadors and special envoys and cabinet members "serve at the president's pleasure." Even Yovanovitch admits that.

So if Trump wanted to get rid of people who opposed his corrupt shadow policy and replace them with people who would aid and abet it, then he has an absolute right as chief exec to do that. 

Or anyway, that's what they're saying on the Brian Kilmead show.

[6andcounting]

(11-18-2019, 01:31 PM)jj22 Wrote: So you know nothing about the state department blocking testimonies?

You've never heard of the name Rudy? Or Barr? Or any of the key players named in the memo of the call?

With this lack of knowledge (or ability to google), how can we trust anything you say? The credibility obviously is lacking.

If you are fine with the President needing help from foreign counties to win an election just say so, but the spin doesn't work in this forum as you are finding out.

In the mean time reading how Trump is furious with Pompeo for not doing a better job stopping those who bravely ignored the order and have testified anyway.

I don't want you to trust anything anyone says. I want you do look at the evidence they back their words with. 

And as I've said already.....  I said I couldn't find anything on Google on who (whether it was a specific name or someone in general who hasn't been publicly identified.) was prevented from testifying. But since you tried to attack my personal credibility, I challenge you to name someone prevented from testifying. You know, the same exact thing you attacked my personal credibility on. Easy enough, right? 

[6andcounting]

(11-18-2019, 09:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Silly me, I suppose, for considering a president ordering executive branch employees not to testify/cooperate with the investigation as well as invoking executive privilege for certain ones to be preventing witnesses from appearing. I can't believe how silly it is to consider someone telling his subordinates not to do something preventing them from doing something.

You said that the reason we didn't have first hand testimony is because Trump and his administration prevented those with first hand knowledge from testifying. But nobody with first hand knowledge was actually prevented. So your explanation on why we don't have first hand witnesses was inaccurate. 

(11-18-2019, 09:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can't believe how silly it is to consider someone telling his subordinates not to do something preventing them from doing something.

That's not what you said originally though. Originally you said

(11-14-2019, 09:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  And why aren't we hearing from more direct people? the answer to that is because the White House (Trump) is preventing them from testifying. So Republicans could make it so we have the people directly involved testify to what occurred. Republicans could put them on the stand. But they aren't. Why would that be?

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 04:14 PM)6andcounting Wrote: You said that the reason we didn't have first hand testimony is because Trump and his administration prevented those with first hand knowledge from testifying. But nobody with first hand knowledge was actually prevented. So your explanation on why we don't have first hand witnesses was inaccurate. 

Keep believing whatever you like. What you said in this response is not even a refutation of my statement but just ignores the logic behind it, which I am assuming is due to your inability to counter it. Whether that is due to ignorance and a lack of understanding or just willful blindness. People directly involved have been issued subpoenas and are fighting them, people that have received a directive from Trump to ignore subpoenas. You're just flat out wrong with this one.

[6andcounting]

(11-20-2019, 04:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Keep believing whatever you like. What you said in this response is not even a refutation of my statement but just ignores the logic behind it, which I am assuming is due to your inability to counter it. Whether that is due to ignorance and a lack of understanding or just willful blindness. People directly involved have been issued subpoenas and are fighting them, people that have received a directive from Trump to ignore subpoenas. You're just flat out wrong with this one.

I don't disagree with what you said in the last post. If that's what you posted originally I wouldn't have disagreed with it then either. I quoted your exact original quote with the quote feature and that's the quote I disagree with. Nobody with first hand knowledge has been prevented from testifying.  

Those fighting subpoenas have nothing to do with Trump preventing them from testifying. They are fighting because they don't want to testifying - not because Trump won't let them.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 04:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't disagree with what you said in the last post. If that's what you posted originally I wouldn't have disagreed with it then either. I quoted your exact original quote with the quote feature and that's the quote I disagree with. Nobody with first hand knowledge has been prevented from testifying.  

Those fighting subpoenas have nothing to do with Trump preventing them from testifying. They are fighting because they don't want to testifying - not because Trump won't let them.

Here's the big question, though: would they fight a Congressional subpoena if they did not have the backing of the White House in their efforts? 10-to-1 we would have already heard from these folks had Trump not issued his directive.

Edit to add: There are also the Executive Privilege claims.

[fredtoast]

(11-20-2019, 04:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Those fighting subpoenas have nothing to do with Trump preventing them from testifying. They are fighting because they don't want to testifying - not because Trump won't let them.

You would think they would be anxious to clear the President with the testimony.

Why do the ones closest to him not want to defend him?

[Dill]

(11-20-2019, 04:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Those fighting subpoenas have nothing to do with Trump preventing them from testifying. They are fighting because they don't want to testifying - not because Trump won't let them.

Has Trump told those fighting subpoenas that they were free to testify, no executive or attorney-client privilege, etc.?

That would be surprising. Do you have some information about that?

Short of the president himself, most of us would certainly like to see Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton, but most of all RUDY, testify.

[hollodero]

(11-20-2019, 04:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Those fighting subpoenas have nothing to do with Trump preventing them from testifying. They are fighting because they don't want to testifying - not because Trump won't let them.

I'm sorry, but this is just absurd.

Mulvaney said he would obey Trump's order not to testify. Hey that is true!
Also that guy Eisenberg, the lawyer Bolton sent everyone to. He is more or less forbidden to appear. There is a qoute for that. “Even if Mr. Eisenberg had been afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare, the President has instructed Mr. Eisenberg not to appear at the deposition,” Burck wrote." link

In the same article, one can find "Another witness sought by the House, former NSC official Charles Kupperman, filed a lawsuit last month asking a federal court to decide whether he should testify under subpoena or obey directives from the executive branch saying he is immune from compelled testimony." That is I believe the lawsuit that also keeps Bolton away.

Those who appeared were brave enough to ignore Trump's directive and follow the Congress' subpoena - which is not natural. Or whatever Sondland's rational was. Trump tried to block Sondland too. It's reported widely.

"not becaue Trump won't let them"... I mean, honestly. Even if there weren't such examples, it would be obvious that it's Trump standing in the way of witnesses appearing. They have (or would get if it made sense) their congressional subpoenas, they would have to obey without question - their own "not wanting" would play zero role without the Trump directive not to appear behind it.

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472195-trump-was-briefed-on-whistleblower-complaint-before-he-released-aid?fbclid=IwAR16_mYqknhqe6UcWzpEpxO1ILi_afopWgYD7QOQPDYzZ02FDdnbbOgGAyo

NYT is reporting that Trump released the aid to Ukraine after being briefed by WH lawyers on the existence of the whistleblower report. At the time, the WH was trying to determine if they had to give the report to Congress.

Also revealed today, the White House budget office put the aid on hold the same day Trump talked to Zelensky

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/ukraine-aid-trump-call-omb/index.html