Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

It is difficult to judge which PPP left leaning poster is more disappointed this morning.

 

I'm going to have to with GB for his creation of hilariously unneeded thread.

 

?

 

And here I am trying to keep track of which of them are actually the same... 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Mitt Romney is "deeply troubled" by the transcript per his aid. 

 

I wanna say something nice about Mitt as Mormons are some of the nicest collective of people I know (I spent a lot of years with a second residence in Utah), but I can't. I am more interested in why he doesn't use some of his millions on a spine. 

[LB3]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

It is difficult to judge which PPP left leaning poster is more disappointed this morning.

 

I'm going to have to with GB for his creation of hilariously unneeded thread.

 

?

Between this thread and his takes in the old Josh Allen thread, I'd have to go with Jrober.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Mitt Romney is "deeply troubled" by the transcript per his aid. 

 

 

(Just proves how much of an op this all was)

Mitt Romney has gone downhill faster than the Jamaican bobsled team.

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I wanna say something nice about Mitt as Mormons are some of the nicest collective of people I know (I spent a lot of years with a second residence in Utah), but I can't. I am more interested in why he doesn't use some of his millions on a spine. 

Harry Reid is/was/claims to be a Mormon.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Mitt Romney has gone downhill faster than the Jamaican bobsled team.

 

His role was to be the next McCain. 

 

He just is too boring to be McCain. He's so dull he puts coffee to sleep.

[whatdrought]

Okay... Someone help me out here as I am new to this thing and not wanting to get much deeper than the knees...

 

If, (and so far this seems unlikely) Trump did what the Dems. are accusing, and withheld aid or whatever in order to assert pressure over a Ukrainian investigation body, he was doing so following the precedent of Biden, who did the same thing and admitted it in front of hundreds of people? 

 

Also, what distinction is there between investigating a political opponent and a former Vice President? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

His role was to be the next McCain. 

 

He just is too boring to be McCain. He's so dull he puts coffee to sleep.

7 years ago I thought he might be a functional bureaucrat with some principles. Not anymore.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Okay... Someone help me out here as I am new to this thing and not wanting to get much deeper than the knees...

 

If, (and so far this seems unlikely) Trump did what the Dems. are accusing, and withheld aid or whatever in order to assert pressure over a Ukrainian investigation body, he was doing so following the precedent of Biden, who did the same thing and admitted it in front of hundreds of people? 

 

Also, what distinction is there between investigating a political opponent and a former Vice President? 

 

Go one step further -- the big charge is that Trump pressured a foreign country to investigate his political opponent. 

 

That's exactly what Obama/Clinton did in 2016... in the Ukraine (And England, And New Zealand, And France, And Canada). 

 

The people who are outraged today spent the past three years COVERING UP that fact from 2016. So they're not hypocrites -- they're worse. 

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

7 years ago I thought he might be a functional bureaucrat with some principles. Not anymore.

 

Many people felt that way. 

Hell, I felt that way about 44. 

 

Oops.

[Tiberius]

So how total of an exoneration is the transcript? 100%? 

 

 

[whatdrought]

Just now, Tiberius said:

So how total of an exoneration is the transcript? 100%? 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So how total of an exoneration is the transcript? 100%? 

 

 

You're like a mouse in that you can squeeze in through the smallest of holes.

[Bob&Doug]

43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

<snip>

CROWDSTRIKE

CROWDSTRIKE

CROWDSTRIKE

 

That's what scares the hell out of Pelosi and Chuck more than anything. That's why they were trying to get ahead of this. 

 

Bye, Joe. 

Bye, Nancy.

Bye, Hillary.

Bye, Obama.

Bye, Kerry.

Bye, Crowdstrike.

Bye, Fusion GPS/Glenn Simpson

Bye, Dem majority in the House. 

 

This isn't the left shooting them in the foot -- they shot themselves in the face on cable news.  

 

 

A running coup against a sitting president launched by the IC and media is definitely not normal. We are in agreement there. 

 

"If that bastard wins, we'll all hang from nooses."    LOL

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

You don't think it's wrong for Trump to extort a foreign power to go after an American citizen? 

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You're like a mouse in that you can squeeze in through the smallest of holes.

And you still eat my sh it 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

9 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Where there's smoke there's fire.

 

Your house is burning. You've already inhaled a lot of smoke.

 

Just get out while you can.

 

You wrote that while looking into a mirror I trust. 

 

Because it's Joe Biden who's the most ***** here. By miles and miles. And he'll bring down a lot of people with him. His corruption in the Ukraine wasn't a one off -- it was one stop of many on his collection route. 

 

Bye, Joe! Hello landslide in 2020 for Trump.

[John Adams]

30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

The source is anonymous. We cannot question him. We cannot ask anything about him. Who is twisting to fit a narrative again? You're literally trying to have it both ways. Sorry, you're wrong. By any definition.

 

Ratcliffe just now: "I keep hearing a bunch of excuses for why it (the transcript) doesn't say what they said it would say."

 

Lots of excused for it, Mr. Ratcliffe. But only one reason: The media and left lied to the public. 

Again. 

 

You're a dingbat. You can't question him this very second. He's going to get questioned. Relax brother. I know you like the urgency of "tomorrow" and "It's all going to happen next week," but it won't be too much longer until we hear from him. The fact that you, DR with all your followers across the globe who copy and share your thoughts as you say, don't yet know is not something most of us are worried about. It's coming. Have a cup of coffee and by about the time you're done, his name will be out.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, John Adams said:

 

You're a dingbat. 

 

Nah. The dingbat is the guy trying to say the anonymous source isn't really anonymous.

 

 

[Numark3]

Constantly pointing out there is no quid pro quo, direct evidence, etc. is dumb.  It’s nice buzz words you can repeat....

 

Secondary and circumstantial evidence can be just as strong.  

 

indirect whistelblowers can be 100% credible 

 

Explicit Quid pro quo isn’t the only way to do what he is accused of doing.

 

 

 

i haven’t thought about this scandal at all, but you all parroting these defenses show you really don’t know anything 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just now, Crayola64 said:

i haven’t thought about this scandal at all, but you all parroting these defenses show you really don’t know anything 

 

Says the guy literally parroting the media while refusing to read the primary source material for themselves. You don't know what this story is really about because you've decided you're better off remaining ignorant rather than thinking for yourself. 

 

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You don't think it's wrong for The President of the United States of America Trump to extort a foreign power to go after an American citizen?   To speak with the President of Ukraine regarding the corrupt actions of the former Vice President of the United States - Actions that said VPOTUS admitted publicly, actions that involved extorting a foreign power in order to cover up the corrupt actions of his son and protect his son.  

 

No, I don't think that's wrong. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

You're a dingbat. You can't question him this very second. He's going to get questioned. Relax brother. I know you like the urgency of "tomorrow" and "It's all going to happen next week," but it won't be too much longer until we hear from him. The fact that you, DR with all your followers across the globe who copy and share your thoughts as you say, don't yet know is not something most of us are worried about. It's coming. Have a cup of coffee and by about the time you're done, his name will be out.  

That's why you were so impatient to condemn Trump in this matter. You should stop, you're giving lawyers a bad name.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Numark3]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Says the guy literally parroting the media while refusing to read the primary source material for themselves. You don't know what this story is really about because you've decided you're better off remaining ignorant rather than thinking for yourself. 

 

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

Eye roll.  

 

Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works.

 

”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say.  

Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

indirect whistelblowers can be 100% credible 

 

A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

 

Eye roll.  

 

Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works.

 

I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll. 

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Eye roll.  

 

Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works.

 

”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say.  

 

Without Direct Sources, there is no evidence..... It's called hearsay. A whistleblower without direct sources is just a guy putting words together. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

Constantly pointing out there is no quid pro quo, direct evidence, etc. is dumb.  It’s nice buzz words you can repeat....

 

Secondary and circumstantial evidence can be just as strong.  

 

indirect whistelblowers can be 100% credible 

 

Explicit Quid pro quo isn’t the only way to do what he is accused of doing.

 

 

 

i haven’t thought about this scandal at all, but you all parroting these defenses show you really don’t know anything 

Now there you go again, sticking your nose into a conversation that you have no basic knowledge of or the specifics of the prior discussion.

[Albwan]

4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Eye roll.  

 

Just pointing out your your lack of understanding of how evidence works.

 

”No direct source” and “No quid pro quo” are dumb things to say.  

Unless you're Clarice Starling.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/ukraine-whistleblowers-lead-attorney-donated-to-biden/

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

No, I don't think that's wrong. 

Of course not. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Numark3]

12 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

A secondary source is not as credible as a primary source. So far we have a secondary source that conflicts with the primary source. Until such a time as more primary sources are released, we have what is legally known as hear-say. 

 

That’s just not true.  Secondary sources can be just as credible.  And don’t even get me started on hearsay. It doesn’t necessarily goes to credibility, but admissibility....so who cares?  Plus it’s not that simple.

 

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll. 

 

You clearly dont.  Find a tedtalk or something on evidence dude.  You sound dumb when you parrot dumb things.

 

10 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Without Direct Sources, there is no evidence..... It's called hearsay. A whistleblower without direct sources is just a guy putting words together. 

 

That’s blatantly not true and objectively wrong.  But okay 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Schiff giving a presser now. He claims Trump saying, "we haven't gotten enough reciprocity" is proof he was shaking the Ukraine down. 

 

Uh... Mr. Pencil Neck, that's been Trump's policy since day one of his campaign. That kind of talk is not a shakedown.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

We are going to learn this week and at the hearing (if it happens) that the "whistleblower" was handled appropriately - and that the complaint was not even within the ODNI legal issues it can investigate - in other words the complaint from day one was bogus - and 100% political

 

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Crayola64 said:

You clearly dont.  Find a tedtalk or something on evidence dude.  You sound dumb when you parrot dumb things.

 

Link me where I said something wrong about evidence. Thanks. 

 

I didn't. Because I know how it works, having worked in the legal field for a good chunk of my early career. 

 

Bye, Troll.

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm aware of how evidence works, thanks. I'm also aware that you have nothing to offer on this topic -- not because you're incapable, but because you're allergic to thinking for yourself. Bye, troll. 

 

But you're not an adjunct professor at a community college, so there!

[Deranged Rhino]

Schiff just trotted out lie after lie as fact -- none of which were pushed back on by the media: 

1) Trump asked for and received foreign interference in 2016 (Nope, but Schiff and his side did)

2) The Ukrainian president knew what Trump "really" meant (though he has no way to know what the president thinks)

 

 

He also looks like he's been crying. 

[John Adams]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's why you were so impatient to condemn Trump in this matter. You should stop, you're giving lawyers a bad name.

 

Here's what I knew and said before the transcript, repeated many times so even someone as dense as you would have a chance at getting it:

 

20 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

It was wrong when it was done to Trump. It is wrong now. 

 

In this exact thread is we are talking about the current sitting president and what the repercussions will be if the transcript shows what has been reported.

 

We know for sure:

 

- He withheld the money (and later released it after pressured by Congress when the media broke the story that he'd withheld it)

 - He had the call.

- Trump said, "The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption—all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” ... With apologies for his mangling of our mother tongue, I don't know if this means he pressured Zelensky on the call directly about Biden...or if he just applied general pressure regarding corruption...or as is his want and most likely, he applied pressure about Biden in a wink-wink way. 

- Rudy is about as clear as mud but acting at the president's behest, he's applied pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden. 

 

What will be interesting is if he put pressure on the Ukraine on the call to investigate anyone by name, and in particular anyone other than Biden. I would not think the Bidens are the only possible dirty dealers in the Ukraine and singling Hunter Biden out would be troubling. 

 

I've now read the transcript. It's troubling that our president directly pressured another country's president to investigate his leading political opponent. He withheld the funding before the call. He brought up the funding in a roundabout way on the call. There's a lot of smoke there. 

 

Maybe there's more to come, maybe not. 

 

Reserving judgment but I maintain my position all along that the Dems jumped the gun here--they should not have initiated impeachment unless and until they were pretty certain of success. 

 

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

But you're not an adjunct professor at a community college, so there!

 

Lol whatever floats your boat.  Insults that we both know aren’t true don’t bother me.  Experienced big law attorney and teach at a top 20 law school....I’ll forever be more qualified than you on this