Jump to content

Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He didn't only ask the Ukrainians to look into Biden. That's false. 

 

He asked the Ukraine to look into CROWDSTRIKE. 

 

If you don't know what Crowdstrike is... you should by now.

 

Spin, spin, spin, spin.

 

That narrative about Ukrainian corruption is complete garbage. It would be great for Republicans if it were true, but it's not.

Edited by jrober38
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Spin, spin, spin, spin.

 

That narrative about Ukrainian corruption is complete garbage. It would be great for Republicans if it were true, but it's not.

 

That's not spin. 

 

That's what the transcript says. Do you deny he asked about CrowdStrike? Are you really going to argue that? 

 

Come on now. 

 

The black ledger -- came from the Ukraine (proven, not fiction)

Steele worked in the Ukraine with the people involved in this whole affair (proven, not fiction)

Biden/Obama got dirty in the Ukraine orchestrating coups for Soros (proven, not fiction)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not spin. 

 

That's what the transcript says. Do you deny he asked about CrowdStrike? Are you really going to argue that? 

 

Come on now. 

 

I'm aware of it. I've read the whole transcript, which isn't actually a transcript by the way. 

 

What does Crowdstrike have to do with Ukrainian political corruption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I'm aware of it. I've read the whole transcript, which isn't actually a transcript by the way. 

 

What does Crowdstrike have to do with Ukrainian political corruption?

 

The better question to ask is what does CrowdStrike have to do with the 2016 election. If you don't know the answer to that, then you should. 

 

Because it answers your first question.

 

And "it's not really a transcript" is a canard. It's the closest thing that exists to a transcript. Be better than blindly following talking points and look into how those transcripts are compiled. You'll find it's impossible to fake one.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The better question to ask is what does CrowdStrike have to do with the 2016 election. If you don't know the answer to that, then you should. 

 

Because it answers your first question.

 

Spin, spin, spin, spin.

 

LMAO

 

If you think Trump actually gave a damn about cleaning up Ukrainian political corruption, you're absolutely crazy. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Spin, spin, spin, spin.

 

LMAO

 

If you think Trump actually gave a damn about cleaning up Ukrainian political corruption, you're absolutely crazy. 

 

It's NOT about Ukrainian corruption. 

 

It's about US CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE. 

 

That's not spin. That's reality. 

 

Again: Black Ledger (Ukrainian sourced), Steele's dossier (Ukrainian sourced), Biden/Burisma (proven and real) -- plus Nuland/Clinton/Soros and the Orange Revolution. Not to mention McCain's involvement. 

 

 

 

It's always fun when someone thinks they understand a topic, wades down here to try to prove it, then gets embarrassed when they realize they're blindly pushing spin and talking points with no basis in reality. 

 

**********************************************************************

 

 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More about the Ukraine/2016

 

 

 

You're being lied to, jrober -- by the same people who SWORE to you for three years they had definitive evidence that Trump/Russia colluded to steal the election. Why do you continue to give proven liars the benefit of the doubt? 

 

Is it because it conforms to your partisan bias? 

 

Shouldn't you, even if you remain anti-Trump (which is your right, not an issue), consider getting new sources once your old ones are exposed as liars with an agenda designed to divide the country and support the WORST elements of the IC? 

 

Or no?

 

And more: on Nuland -- a key player: 

 

 

But it's not about US corruption, right, Jrober? 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Spin, spin, spin, spin.

 

LMAO

 

If you think Trump actually gave a damn about cleaning up Ukrainian political corruption, you're absolutely crazy. 

 

You might note that Trump since he became President has pulled aid from countries where he didn't like their behavior and he has put conditions on aid being provided.  Some that come to mind are NATO countries (pay your fair share), Mexico and other Latin American countries (stop the BS migration) and Pakistan IIRC.  He's actually been quite consistent in asking for a fair return in exchange for aid.  When you stop viewing Biden as a political opponent and rather as one that has his fingerprints on previous aid that went missing with a family member being compensated directly by the organization and principles of the organization who handled some of the missing AID money, there's a pattern of consistency from Trump.  He's used taxpayer money as a lever to get benefits for our country.  The Biden's have earned their investigation.  Joe made the incredible mistake of bragging about his handling of aid without the benefit of Hillary to cover him. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Are you serious or just trolling with talking points?  Just in case...and because I am bored...

 

Revised why?  The most likely answer I heard was that he was the first witness, tried to cover for the boss initially, was contradicted by later testimony/texts, and had to correct in order to avoid jail on perjury charges.

 

If possible, put yourself in Zelensky's shoes.  He MUST get US aid or his country may be taken over by Russia, correct?  Trump has the ability to alter foreign policy for possibly several years ahead.  Zelensky was put in a position where he could offend Trump and sink his nation with the wrong answer.  I can't say he lied, but he really only had one possible answer in that situation.

 

The aid was withheld for quite a while, even into September.  The Ukrainians learned of the hold up apparently in August.  Zelensky was preparing to make the announcement of the investigations Trump wanted when the whistle blower story broke.  Two days later, if I recall, the Ukrainian funds were released.  That timing suggests Trump was trying to get his personal political favors using the aid money as leverage.  Acting properly only after getting caught does not excuse the attempt.

 

Yeah I suspect Zelensky could be lying.  I also suspect there was some major corruption going on with the Obama admin/Bidens in Ukraine and therefore I have no problem with it being investigated considering a) we are giving to/wasting more money on them and b) Biden is running for President.  If you don't have a problem with those 2 things, that says more about you than anything.

 

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

Obama refused to ship missiles to the region, and now Trump is causing all the problems by delaying the delivery...

 

Yup.  He pulled out of the European missile defense shield to appease Putin and a week later asked for a quid pro quo from him, through Medvedev, when he was caught on that hot mic saying "I'll have more flexibility after my election."  And that pullout allowed Russia to invade Ukraine.

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Does anyone else think this non-revealing of the ‘whistleblower’ has gotten to be just a tad ridiculous? When the guy has a lawyer spewing nonsense into the public arena I think his identity can be revealed. This country has become like junior high school!

 

His name is now known.  What's ridiculous is claiming he's now irrelevant and shouldn't be bothered with anymore. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Does anyone else think this non-revealing of the ‘whistleblower’ has gotten to be just a tad ridiculous? When the guy has a lawyer spewing nonsense into the public arena I think his identity can be revealed. This country has become like junior high school!


Has become??  It’s been junior high for a long time. We’re sliding into elementary school now. 
 

“Trump and Putin sittin in a tree.....”

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for all the outrage the Dems have professed over the McCarthy Hearings and that, i never dreamed they meant outrage because they weren't the ones to inflict it.

 

Well, they are doing it now without a shred of evidence to back it up

 

at least there were proven Communists working at State and other high positions of government.

 

Edited by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam Schiff Announces CIA “Whistleblower” 
Will Not Be Called to Testify During Impeachment 
Effort Initiated by “Whistleblower”…

Original Article

 

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff responds to the republican witness request list. In the final paragraph of the letter, Schiff announces the “whistleblower”, the person Chairman Schiff coordinated with to initiate the impeachment, will never be called to deliver testimony:

 

 

 

 

 

EBC50CED-2005-4DCE-A645-84729E6C407C.thumb.jpeg.4806cf6544a87af927f4fa7b363edbbd.jpeg

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...