Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Please list what the so called whistleblower has been correct about.

Pretty simple, you already know. 

 

But Trump was demanding a public announcement of investigation against Trump’s political opponent in exchange for Ukraine getting the aide approved by congress. 

 

Thats why John Bolton called it a drug deal 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Who knew this picture could get better?
 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Pretty simple, you already know. 

 

But Trump was demanding a public announcement of investigation against Trump’s political opponent in exchange for Ukraine getting the aide approved by congress. 

 

Thats why John Bolton called it a drug deal 

Trump's people were asking for a public announcement that Ukraine would fight corruption. Period. Trump told the ambassador that there was no quid pro quo and the president of Ukraine should live up to his campaign promises and do what was right. The money was already approved by Congress, you nitwit. Don't you feel at least a little guilty about all the lying you do?

[Tiberius]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Trump's people were asking for a public announcement that Ukraine would fight corruption. Period. Trump told the ambassador that there was no quid pro quo and the president of Ukraine should live up to his campaign promises and do what was right. The money was already approved by Congress, you nitwit. Don't you feel at least a little guilty about all the lying you do?

No, they were specifically saying it was Biden, Congress would never have approved funding if they knew Trump was going to use our tax payers money to steal the next election. 

 

Im lying?? Wow, you cultists are creepy 

 

Impeach! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

Publicly naming any whistleblower puts his safety and his family's safety in jeopardy. Not a good look but you do you

 

 

 

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

The media trips over itself to report on allegations, often hides behind unnamed sources, and often destroys lives and reputations for sport. They report on troop movements, sensitive information parsed for maximum effect, and care little about who gets trampled.

 

The Whistleblower statutes make an awful lot of sense in the theoretical, there is the potential for significant conflict of interest and fraud in the practical. 

 

If by sharing the story about a story shared with him by someone else who heard from a friend that someone said something that made someone else uncomfortable he feels that he is in danger, he should report it to law enforcement. If, on the other hand, he has ever been in HIllary Clinton's circle of trust, he's already dead and just hasn't gotten the memo. 

 

We need to get to the bottom of this partisan dirty deed, and we need your support in telling the story far and wide. 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Buffalo_Gal]

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

[row_33]

need a Canadian news source to name the whistleblower first, then everyone can jump in?

 

 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

 

The #rebellion hashtag on his tweet is particularly nice.  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Those who lack principles, don't get to feign outrage without being mocked. 

 

Looking at the usual suspects.

[B-Man]

ABC NEWS EXECUTIVES BELIEVE THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THE FORMER EMPLOYEE WHO ACCESSED AMY ROBACH HOT MIC FOOTAGE of her complaining that the House of Stephanopoulos spiked her story of Jeffrey Epstein during the 2016 election year, HuffPost/New York magazine contributor Yashar Ali writes in his newsletter.

Two sources with knowledge of the situation tell me that ABC News executives know who the former employee is, but don’t know if that person leaked the footage to Project Veritas, the right-wing activist group, or if they shared it with others who leaked the footage.

 

What ABC News executives do know is that the former employee is now working at CBS News. I’m told that ABC News executives have informed their counterparts at CBS News that this person accessed the footage of Robach. It’s unclear if CBS News plans on taking any action against the employee.

 

Or to put it another way, “Funny this comes at a time we are discussing whistleblower protection.

 

Who wants to bet the MSM will be consistent here? Me neither.”

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 6, 2019 by B-Man

[transplantbillsfan]

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

So much has come to light at this point from other witnesses directly that the Whistleblower complaint is unnecessary in this impeachment inquiry.  All it did was get this ball rolling, but at this point, there's no stopping it.

 

This focus on exposing him/her is just a pathetic and desperate effort on the part of the President and his cronies. 

[IDBillzFan]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

 

Damn.

 

Do you think anyone in power on the left ever, for one moment, stops in the middle of their latest meltdown and thinks, "Y'know, before we do (fill in the blank), maybe we should take a moment to think this through."

 

They're like the Adam Gase of politics.

[Wacka]

Doesn't Shiff for brains look little bit like Gase?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Wacka

[keepthefaith]

Trump: "fire Mueller!" 

The Left: "impeach, obstruction of justice!"

It never happened, Mueller finished.

 

Trump:  "I'd like you to look into Crowdstrike and the Biden's"

The Left: "Impeach, quid pro quo!"

It never happened, aid was provided. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

29 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

So much has come to light at this point from other witnesses directly that the Whistleblower complaint is unnecessary in this impeachment inquiry.  All it did was get this ball rolling, but at this point, there's no stopping it.

 

This focus on exposing him/her is just a pathetic and desperate effort on the part of the President and his cronies. 

Lie with impunity just to #GetTrump!!  #vivaleresistance!! #OrangeManBad!!

Sure, why not?

And WTF "other witnesses"? Are you smokin' something funny?  Read the damn transcript.  The request (which was in line with the Congressionally ratified treaty with the Ukraine) was for help looking into 2016 election abnormalities (I mean it was fine to inspect Trump's undies for 2+ years looking for them, why not other people?), and corruption by the Obama administration. 


 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Doc]

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

So much has come to light at this point from other witnesses directly that the Whistleblower complaint is unnecessary in this impeachment inquiry.  All it did was get this ball rolling, but at this point, there's no stopping it.

 

This focus on exposing him/her is just a pathetic and desperate effort on the part of the President and his cronies. 

 

None of it matters.  In the end you have Zelensky denying a quid pro quo/extortion and the money being released without a quid pro quo/being extorted.  The House can impeach but the Senate will never convict.

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

So much has come to light at this point from other witnesses directly that the Whistleblower complaint is unnecessary in this impeachment inquiry.  All it did was get this ball rolling, but at this point, there's no stopping it.

 

This focus on exposing him/her is just a pathetic and desperate effort on the part of the President and his cronies. 

Have you not kept up with the particulars of this farce? The so called whistleblower was/is in cahoots with bad characters like John  Brennan and worked closely with Joe Biden. He was a leaker who got tossed out of the WH in 2017. It appears as if his "whistleblower" complaint was brought about by collusion with Adam Schiff & members of his staff. The Left and the MSM have had no compunction in the past regarding doxing people but they are apoplectic over having this guy testify and be cross examined. Why? 

[Deranged Rhino]

44 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

If he's who is being speculated, his identity is crucial. 

 

You don't think it's important for a CIA Officer, deeply intertwined with the illegalities committed by the CIA during the Russia investigation (coup), to publicly come forward with his account? You're really okay with nameless, faceless, agents of our intelligence services trying to take down a president from the shadows? 

 

Before you answer "but TRUMP" -- stop and think about the long term implications and precedent that sets. 

[IDBillzFan]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

None of it matters.  In the end you have Zelensky denying a quid pro quo/extortion and the money being released without a quid pro quo/being extorted.  The House can impeach but the Senate will never convict.

 

But hey...knock yourselves out, leftists! America is TOTALLY behind your impeachment plans. 

53 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

Funny how leftists are suddenly SO QUICK to say "Oh, hey, nevermind that whistleblower! Nothing to see there!"

 

So funny. So unbelievably funny.

[B-Man]

On 9/25/2019 at 2:49 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

Jesus. 

 

I came here just to see if there would be ANY shift whatsoever.

 

All you Trump lovers (sorry, that's maybe the most neutral word for you at this point), can you acknowledge, very simply, that IF Trump withheld money from the Ukraine--entirely, or in part, because he wanted them to investigate the Bidens--he deserves to be impeached?

 

If you say no, you're clearly not as much of a Patriot as many of you claim to be or at least present yourselves as.

 

The fact is that there is evidently a whistleblower who, according to reports (it HAS to be merely reported since Trump and the White House have tried to stonewall the legal process for whistleblower release) has evidence against Trump based on multiple instances, not just one...

 

so do you guys even give a $#!+?

 

This is the 3rd President in our entire history to be impeached, and neither of the previous 2 were impeached for what the current inquiry is for, which is coercing a foreign government for political gain.

 

I'm genuinely curious because this is the President of our country. This is seriously screwed up if proven true. Probably treasonous.

 

Do you care?

 

I feel like most of you are thinking you're captains of your own crazy ships in the 1700s and it's your obligation to go down with your ship.

 

I

 

 

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

The Whistleblower is an afterthought at this point.

 

Why even bother talking about it?

 

So much has come to light at this point from other witnesses directly that the Whistleblower complaint is unnecessary in this impeachment inquiry.  All it did was get this ball rolling, but at this point, there's no stopping it.

 

This focus on exposing him/her is just a pathetic and desperate effort on the part of the President and his cronies. 

 

LOL. 

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

Heh Trump was reading these tweets at this rally in Louisiana tonight.

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

None of it matters.  In the end you have Zelensky denying a quid pro quo/extortion and the money being released without a quid pro quo/being extorted.  The House can impeach but the Senate will never convict.

 

And not only did Trump not get what he asked from the Ukraine, and not only gave the Ukraine what he was supposedly withholding, he's now getting impeached for something he didn't ask for.

 

He's an extraordinarily bad extortionist.  So bad that I'd support him being impeached on being too incompetent a crook to hold the office.  

[transplantbillsfan]

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

Get out of the rabbit hole that is Twitter.

 

At this point you've had testimony from multiple highly respected people--Taylor, Vindman, Volkner-- who corroborate the quid pro quo and idiots like Sondland who lied and have come back to change their testimony.

 

Sadly, we're in a Twitter world, so I guarantee Congressional Republicans stick with Trump til the end no matter what and Senate republicans likely do the same.

 

And they're going to move the goalposts every other day the way they've already been doing.

 

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

 

You're really going to argue there's "only one set of facts," and it's the set that's been selectively leaked from secret closed-door hearings and been presented in a way that is a classic example of the "begging the question" fallacy?  

 

I mean...I know you're racist, but I never knew you were this acutely stupid, too.  You haven't been presented any facts yet.

[njbuff]

Like I have said.........

 

I ain’t a leftie or a rightie and I didn’t vote for Trump..............

 

but if you can’t see what this whole impeachment nonsense, whistleblower, quid pro quo, Russian collusion delusion is truly all about.........

 

then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

Just because your hatred for Trump causes you brain damage, it’s nowhere near reason enough to impeach him.

 

Is the left full of mentally ill Richard Goldstein’s or am I missing something?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

50 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Jesus it's still nuts over here.

 

This is so much bigger than the SUMMARY (not transcript) of that phone call at this point.

 

Here is what I will give all of you: the other day I either read or heard an interview with a rabid Trump supporter and it really stuck with me and really made me think about this place. When asked DIRECTLY if her opinion on the impeachment inquiry had changed when the reporter informed her that Colonel Vindman's testimony--from someone who listened DIRECTLY to the call--revealed that the SUMMARY of that phone call left out key words and phrases like "Burisma" (directly and clearly tying this to Biden and his son, which seemed to somehow be in question), she said "No." When the reporter or interviewer asked why, she said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember where I saw or read it, "Who can I really trust? There are 2 sets of facts. You present your set of facts and I get my own."

 

Folks, there's only one set of facts.

 

Get out of the rabbit hole that is Twitter.

 

At this point you've had testimony from multiple highly respected people--Taylor, Vindman, Volkner-- who corroborate the quid pro quo and idiots like Sondland who lied and have come back to change their testimony.

 

Sadly, we're in a Twitter world, so I guarantee Congressional Republicans stick with Trump til the end no matter what and Senate republicans likely do the same.

 

And they're going to move the goalposts every other day the way they've already been doing.

 

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

Holy cow! 
 

I really had no idea you had these types of investigative chops. You’ve laid out a pretty compelling case.  You read, heard or received a telegram about someone purporting to be a Trump supporter continuing to be a Trump supporter even after someone else asked them a pointed and leading question dealing with their interpretation of a—and this is priceless—transcript of several hours of one-sided closed door testimony from a career bureaucrat?

 

 It’s like I know someone who dated someone who rode on a bus with someone who’s uncle was the Uber driver to a guy who’s  the cousin of someone in the room. I have the chills. 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Holy cow! 
 

I really had no idea you had these types of investigative chops. You’ve laid out a pretty compelling case.  You read, heard or received a telegram about someone purporting to be a Trump supporter continuing to be a Trump supporter even after someone else asked them a pointed and leading question dealing with their interpretation of a—and this is priceless—transcript of several hours of one-sided closed door testimony from a career bureaucrat?

 

 It’s like I know someone who dated someone who rode on a bus with someone who’s uncle was the Uber driver to a guy who’s  the cousin of someone in the room. I have the chills. 

 

And down the rabbit hole you will all continue to fall...

[transplantbillsfan]

 

[bbb]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Lucky for our Country the Kentucky Governor and Virginia state legislature results yesterday indicate, we'll be voting Trump out of office in a year even after the Senate fails to fulfil it's constitutionally mandated duty of being truly objective jurors in an impeachment trial.

 

Meanwhile, every other statewide office in Kentucky went Republican, including the AG, who becomes the first Black AG in Kentucky history.  

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

[Hedge]

9 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment
 

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."
 

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president."
 

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid also assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," referring to outgoing Trump administration employees.
 

</snip>

 

Hmm.

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Trump is brilliant with PR, I've always given him that.

 

Own every single one of your indiscretions to the masses, present those indiscretions as perfectly acceptable, and cast doubt.

 

The ignorant, lazy and loyal will believe him or just not care enough to fact check--ignorant and lazy--and it'll cast just enough doubt publicly where the argument won't hurt him long term.

 

I know you're loyal.

 

You're spewing his words back to me as though they carry equal weight to the sourced Washington Post.

 

Wake up!!! You're being lied to!!!

[Teddy KGB]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Trump is brilliant with PR, I've always given him that.

 

Own every single one of your indiscretions to the masses, present those indiscretions as perfectly acceptable, and cast doubt.

 

The ignorant, lazy and loyal will believe him or just not care enough to fact check--ignorant and lazy--and it'll cast just enough doubt publicly where the argument won't hurt him long term.

 

I know you're loyal.

 

You're spewing his words back to me as though they carry equal weight to the sourced Washington Post.

 

Wake up!!! You're being lied to!!!

 

Says the guy who quotes the WAPO ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Says the guy who quotes the WAPO ??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️

 

It’s amazing, isn’t it?  

 

You can’t help those who won’t think for themselves. But he’s gonna love the avatar I choose for him in a little less than a year from now. 

[Warren Zevon]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

selectively leaked from secret closed-door hearings

 

[Warren Zevon]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

[Tiberius]

Even Bill Barr is refusing to hold his nose and defend this president! Hillary has obviously gotten to

him! 

 

 

Trump wanted Barr to hold news conference saying the president broke no laws in call with Ukrainian leader

 

 

Attorney General William P. Barr, left, and President Trump before Trump signed an executive order on Oct. 28 creating a commission to study law enforcement and justice at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Convention. (Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)

By 

Matt Zapotosky, 

Josh Dawsey and 

Carol D. Leonnig 

November 6, 2019 at 8:02:41 p.m. EST

President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said.

The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department. The president has mentioned Barr’s demurral to associates in recent weeks, saying he wished Barr would have held the news conference, Trump advisers say.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And down the rabbit hole you will all continue to fall...

It's roomier than you would think. Amazon delivers, too. No Starbucks, which is odd. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It's interesting you posted this. My wife had NBC on today and the reported story was headlined "BARR REFUSES TRUMP REQUEST" or something similar. The reporter spoke factually that the WaPo reported that  "sources" reported that Trump requested a press conference. It took the entirety of the 3 or 4 minute segment for the NBC guy to state that the WH called it bs, and that they could not independently verify the story. The reporter also said the WH "tried to downplay the notion that there was any tension between the Trump and Barr.".

 

Isn't a more balanced version of the story that there's a rumor that all this happened? Why include a large banner headline that reports as fact something that can never be verified? In fact, isn't the real story that NBC is reporting an unsubstiated rumor about their political enemy, using the unsubstantiated rumor of another media source, declaring it as fact in a headline, but weasle-wording it at the end for plausible deniability? 

 

This type of story about a school budget battle wouldn't pass muster in a local Pennysaver story in Des Moines, would it? You talk about rabbit holes while you're basically posting a National Enquirer story?