Nunes Aide Is Leaking the Ukraine Whistleblower’s Name
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
So, what you're saying is the repubs are looking for more distraction. Got it.
Oh, now that the whistleblower thing is in fact blown...okay.
TRY to hang me, you big talking MF.
And yet we've got a bad ass leftist in this thread saying "hang them all". Mindset? Really?
Yet you felt the need to mention the whistleblower, the guy who never really witnessed anything - heard it second hand - gossip. Remember?
if the whistle blowers testimony didnt matter people wouldnt be trying to trash the whistle blower
We haven't heard one Republican/Conservative dispute the content and context of Trump's request.
What we've heard is outrage that a whistleblower would raise concerns and that the Dems have been doing the initial stages in private(With Republicans in attendance).
When we have the vote on Thursday...the GOP will need a new strategy and complaint.
You think the "criminal" probe of the Russia investigation starting now is mere coincidence?
It's a diversion attempt. Nothing more and nothing less.
Congressional Republicans, specifically the Senate, know they're going to be on record when the time comes. And their voters will take notice.
What we've heard is outrage that a whistleblower would raise concerns and that the Dems have been doing the initial stages in private(With Republicans in attendance).
When we have the vote on Thursday...the GOP will need a new strategy and complaint.
You think the "criminal" probe of the Russia investigation starting now is mere coincidence?
It's a diversion attempt. Nothing more and nothing less.
Congressional Republicans, specifically the Senate, know they're going to be on record when the time comes. And their voters will take notice.
Yep, along with multiple obstructions of justice and collusion with the russians from the Mueller Report. Of course there are multiple emoluments clause violations and at least one campaign finance violations.
So let's say it is an impeachable offense. Do you think any Republican would have come forward if the Whistleblower hadn't said anything? Would trump have released the phone transcript if the whistleblower hadn't said anything?
I would rather someone come forward and it be nothing, than for someone to do nothing when it was truly something.
No distraction,... It appears to me that Dems got overly involved with the whistle blower while the complaint was being prepared,... Does it change the whistle blowers story?,... probably not, but we should know how this was all pieced together...
I actually get my instructions at our weekly meetings, darlin'. (Deep State has the best cookies, FYI.)
Weekly? No wonder. The inner elites have already decided the script ahead of that meeting...and you're the useful fool.
Sometimes the meeting logistics can be so difficult to hammer out. We've got Deep State meetings to attend, obviously meetings with the Fake News Media and/or Enemies of the People (yes, there's different factions of the media), now there's Inner Elites meetings.
Plus, none of us can afford to miss the Soros meetings.
Trump will never be convicted because there are too many Republicans in the Senate. They will listen to the evidence presented at the trial, and like the jury in "To Kill a Mockingbird" make their decision based on what they want to believe as truth. Then they will retreat into the night....lay low and wait to manufacture an impeachment against a Democrat in the future. 
My goodness......I believe I have seen this before!
My goodness......I believe I have seen this before!
My question was why the whistleblower—and for that matter, all these other witnesses—matter NOW.
Whistleblowers are like tipsters. They may know all the story or just a part. They give the investigators an outline, and the investigators are corroborating the story and filling in the gaps with live witness testimony and document review. The “transcript” is just one piece of evidence in the case, and it appears the live witnesses are very harmful to Trump’s case.
The House investigators will be laying it all out in the near future.
Not sure why this is difficult for some to understand.
If only there was a telephone transcript available. Pass it then read it!
There seems to be a difference of opinions on what Trump did ranging from quid pro quo involving military aid for investigating Biden to just wanting Ukraine to investigate corruption.
What do you think Trump did and does it rise to the level of impeachment?
Trump's sin is probably no more an impeachable offense than Bill Clinton's offense. However the context of Trump's offense is much more "job related" than that of Clinton.
Trump will be impeached by the House and the case heard by Senate. He will not be convicted, I do not believe.....unless there is a "bombshell" that comes forth.
Trump's impeachment is certainly every bit as relevant Clinton's...and probably moreso as his high crime/misdemeanor was "job related."
First, the “official transcript” is not a true transcript, but simply the White House’s version. And we know enough about Trump to know it is almost certainly less than accurate and as self-serving as possible. So testimony from people familiar with the call will help us get a more accurate picture of what was said.
You also seem to be operating under the assumption that there is no disagreement about was was said and done. This is completely wrong. Trump says there was no connection between the military aid and an investigation. Others disagree. Trump claims he only was interested in The Ukraine getting rid of corruption in general. Others claim he was only interested in the optics of a public announcement of an investigation into Biden’s son.
I would expect witnesses to be able to provide insight into who is right. Of course, from what we already know it’s pretty easy to see the truth. Trump used his powers as President to try to blackmail another country into damaging his political opponent. And this can’t be in the least bit surprising to anyone.
At this point you are right about the relevance of what the whistle blower heard, and how it was relayed.
The real question is how hard will you shovel in order to ignore that this was an impeachable offense?
I was primarily answering this part of your post "...and for that matter, all these other witnesses..." You seem to have the rather inexplicable stance that interviewing people familiar with the call and the conversations preceding and following it will not provide any more insights into things. I hopefully have explained that there is still much to be known.
Well, yes and no. Maybe there is information out there that I missed. My understanding is that there is no significant question as to what was said in the call, but the question is what was in the minds of the parties to the call -- the two presidents. Whether Trump was making aid contingent on investigation of the Bidens and/or whether the Ukraine president thought that was the case.
Of course, even if that was the situation, there's a question of whether it's an impeachable act, but that's not what I was addressing.
My understanding is that both men deny there was a quid pro quo. Is that not the case?
Getting back to my original post, I think the reason the Republicans are chasing the whistleblower is that they are trying to build a case that he/she was part of a coordinated effort with Schiff. In other words, that he/she isn't really a whistleblower in the sense that is usually defined.
No quid pro quo because Zelenskiy and Trump say do? Seriously?
Zelesky has already said - as if it’s not obvious and expected anyway - that he wants to be diplomatic and not piss off either party. And Trump is a lying sack of shit.
That’s not the end of the story. It certainly sounds as if anyone familiar with what was going on - who isn’t directly tied to Trump - thought Trump was tying aid to an investigation of Hunter Biden. For personal political gain.
Of course, the GOP will never convict him. But the investigation can certainly extract enough evidence to convince the American public. Which is important politically but also as a part of establishing the facts of this Presidency for history. This all needs to be documented.
No reason to question the whistleblower, unless they have information not included in the report.
Now the other witnesses are bringing forth new information. Quid pro quo etc
Well, there you go. The only two people who would know claim it wasn't. You don't believe them. I certainly can understand why you wouldn't. But you are taking two huge leaps. First, you are discarding what they say because third parties don't think that's what was intended. Second, that Trump was seeking personal political gain (which I think is the biggest leap of all, given the circumstances).
Sorry to be getting off the track here.
The Republicans want to question the WB because they want to know (1) who told him about the call in the first place, and (2) what his ties to Schiff are.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Based on Recent Intel: Who would you rather land out of the portal?
- Latest: Eliot Clough
