Whistleblower

[KeithD]

When you've lost all credibility, just laugh it off like it doesn't bother you.

(Good defense, Keith. Keep that up. Maybe someone will believe you. )

As long as I ruffle a parasitic drone like you as I obviously have, it's all good.

 

[BizzaBizza]

As long as I ruffle a parasitic drone like you as I obviously have, it's all good.

obviously

You know, I'm going to wish you a goodnight. (I'm leaving now, and even I feel a little bad every time I make you look like a fool.)

So, have a goodnight (because I don't believe that anyone has said that to you and meant it in a longtime. You don't bring out the good in people. )

 

[KeithD]

Oh, such drama. Like your whole life is here in this porn site discussion board where you're so irrelivantly tied up in reactionary politics. Night, night, sport.

 

[doowdniw]

You cannot make an official claim to have first hand knowledge of illegal conduct if you aren't a percipient witness.

The "whistleblower" wasn't one of the people who listened to the phone call. <-- This is FACT, not conjecture. The complainant had no actual knowledge of the contents of the call. Hence ANY claims made regarding the call contents by that person were fabrications.

Do you know what we call people who file criminal complaints knowing that what they say in that complaint is false?

How is their saying that someone told them something a fabrication? Unless you're going to say that they weren't actually told anything, and the entire statement is a fabrication by the whistle blower. In light of the readout of the telephone conversation released by the White House, that will be a bit of a stretch. Even ADNI Maguire found the whistle blower to be credible. I haven't read the whistle blower statute - does it require all statements be based upon first hand sensory perception, or can it be based in part on what has been stated to the complainant by others?

 

[KeithD]

The whistleblower didn't claim to have first-hand knowledge of the telephone call. He named several well-placed people who told him about it. His nine pages of chargers contained a detailed and knowledgeable litany of all of the activity surrounding the context of the phone call (the summary transcript of which fully matched what he said he'd been told was in it). The inspector general checked out the whistleblower's charges, including interviewing people he mentioned, and he confirmed the material.

Obviously Harpy hasn't read the charges and never will, because they are not convenient for what he wants to believe. He and the other Trumpettes are getting desperate. They can just be ignored. What will happen is what happens.

It's been increasingly mooted that there isn't just one whistleblower--there's a group who put this together (and with the detail and depth of the substantive material added to the knowledge of the law involved, I find that believable)--although only one might step forward to testify.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Maguire is a first-rate ass-coverer. I've spent some time around career military types; it's a skill one acquires.

But the point has been made repeatedly: he received an allegation about impropriety involving the President, various White House staffers, and the Attorney General; then went to the White House and the Office of Legal Counsel to ask them what he should do next. He was willing to give the accused veto power over the accusation.

He does have veto power over all of his employees.
It's called "Executive Privilege."

Maguire asked his boss if this would be employed...

 

[SpeareChucker]

Yes Keith.

That's how we do it in the US.
I know this guy, who heard from this guy, who saw a guy, who once knew guy...

 

[Kantarii]

I laughed. You're so pathetic.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Yes Keith.

That's how we do it in the US.
I know this guy, who heard from this guy, who saw a guy, who once knew guy...

That's not a fair or accurate characterization, and you know it, dipshit.

 

[ericandshannon]

.....

 

[DawnODay]

Now, let's see where this is all heading...

C. Sabia, Whistleblower Did Not Want Trump Reelected, Never Heard Ukraine Phone Call, Federalist Papers (Sep. 25, 2019).

Meanwhile...

Democrats wrote to the Ukrainian government in May 2018 urging it to continue investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign — collusion later found not to exist.

The demand, which came from U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), resurfaced Wednesday in an opinion piece written by conservative Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Tuesday that the mere possibility that President Trump had asked Ukraine to continue an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden — even without a quid pro quo — was enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. (Biden boasted in 2018 that he had forced Ukraine to remove its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid; he did not tell his audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that the prosecutor was looking into a firm on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, was serving.)​

K. Nelson, Turns Out Dems Wrote to Ukraine Last Year, Demanding They Investigate Trump, Conservative Opinion (Sep 25, 2019), accord J. Moseley, Joe Biden Confesses to Bribery, C-Span (Sep. 21, 2019).

 

[HisArpy]

The whistleblower didn't claim to have first-hand knowledge of the telephone call. He named several well-placed people who told him about it. His nine pages of chargers contained a detailed and knowledgeable litany of all of the activity surrounding the context of the phone call (the summary transcript of which fully matched what he said he'd been told was in it). The inspector general checked out the whistleblower's charges, including interviewing people he mentioned, and he confirmed the material.

Obviously Harpy hasn't read the charges and never will, because they are not convenient for what he wants to believe. He and the other Trumpettes are getting desperate. They can just be ignored. What will happen is what happens.

It's been increasingly mooted that there isn't just one whistleblower--there's a group who put this together (and with the detail and depth of the substantive material added to the knowledge of the law involved, I find that believable)--although only one might step forward to testify.

Ok, for the beginning if you're going to make a claim of illegal conduct as a witness to that conduct, you MUST BE a witness to the conduct.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that you "heard' something about someone. That's called "gossip" not facts.

Yes, it was right for the IG to investigate the claims because even gossip can be right occasionally. That still doesn't make the "witness" an actual "witness" of what went down.

Next up is your "It's been increasingly mooted that there isn't just one whistleblower--there's a group who put this together" thing. Do you realize that if a group of people get together to make a FALSE CLAIM OF ILLEGAL CONDUCT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES that's called a "seditious conspiracy" and a "coup"?

And that doing so a crime under multiple statutes?

 

[beezzz]

The whistleblower didn't claim to have first-hand knowledge of the telephone call. He named several well-placed people who told him about it. His nine pages of chargers contained a detailed and knowledgeable litany of all of the activity surrounding the context of the phone call (the summary transcript of which fully matched what he said he'd been told was in it). The inspector general checked out the whistleblower's charges, including interviewing people he mentioned, and he confirmed the material.

Obviously Harpy hasn't read the charges and never will, because they are not convenient for what he wants to believe. He and the other Trumpettes are getting desperate. They can just be ignored. What will happen is what happens.

It's been increasingly mooted that there isn't just one whistleblower--there's a group who put this together (and with the detail and depth of the substantive material added to the knowledge of the law involved, I find that believable)--although only one might step forward to testify.

no he didnt!

you made this up

 

[jomar]

...

Next up is your "It's been increasingly mooted that there isn't just one whistleblower--there's a group who put this together" thing. Do you realize that if a group of people get together to make a FALSE CLAIM OF ILLEGAL CONDUCT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES that's called a "seditious conspiracy" and a "coup"?


And that doing so a crime under multiple statutes?

Do you seriously think that's what's going on? Did you read the summary of the call (the not transcript)? What does the man have to do to cross your line?

 

[HisArpy]

Do you seriously think that's what's going on? Did you read the summary of the call (the not transcript)? What does the man have to do to cross your line?

Please quote the EXACT WORDS in the "official call transcript" which you allege show that Trump committed an illegal act.

Not Schiff's version, or the MSM's version, or the TDS inspired version; quote the EXACT WORDS that you believe prove Trump committed a crime.

Then cite to the specific statute which makes those words a criminal offense and quote the relevant portions of that statute.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Please quote the EXACT WORDS in the "official call transcript" which you allege show that Trump committed an illegal act.

Not Schiff's version, or the MSM's version, or the TDS inspired version; quote the EXACT WORDS that you believe prove Trump committed a crime.

Then cite to the specific statute which makes those words a criminal offense and quote the relevant portions of that statute.

Uh oh.....wanting specifics is a "progressives" kryptonite.

Trumps crimes, white privileges, what an 'assault weapon' is, a country where socialism worked out.....don't expect much in return man.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Lolol

Trump right now is bent over getting fucked royally by the Deep State.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lolol

Trump right now is bent over getting fucked royally by the Deep State.

Like BotanyTraitor and Rape-Enabler Timmeh like to remind us on a daily basis, Trump is the Real Victim here™!

 

[Aglaopheme]

yes, because when he was speaker of the house he was completely powerless.

He sure acted powerless, just as most of them do. I do think faux news has more power over people at this point.

 

[Aglaopheme]

speaking of lyin' you sure post a lot for someone who is only supposed to post on sunday

And a totally new poster.

So many cowardly alts about.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lolol

Trump right now is bent over getting fucked royally by the Deep State.

No wonder he decreed Nancy Pelosi was no longer Speaker Of The House.

Unitary Executive Uber Alles!

 

[Aglaopheme]

He knew he broke the law and tried to hide it. The whistleblower report was deemed credible and urgent. I love how Lindsey Graham is saying the whistleblower is trying to create a narrative based on second hand information. We have a narrator alright and, as it’s been pointed out, it’s Trump.

What else is hiding there? Putin is getting twitchy!

“Kremlin says it hopes US wouldn't release calls between Trump and Putin calls“

 

[BotanyBoy]

He knew he broke the law and tried to hide it. The whistleblower report was deemed credible and urgent. I love how Lindsey Graham is saying the whistleblower is trying to create a narrative based on second hand information. We have a narrator alright and, as it’s been pointed out, it’s Trump.

What else is hiding there? Putin is getting twitchy!

“Kremlin says it hopes US wouldn't release calls between Trump and Putin calls“

What law did he break??

And since when did breaking the law suddenly become an issue? Ahhh when it wasn't a Democrat doing it...gotchya!

 

[Aglaopheme]

Please quote the EXACT WORDS in the "official call transcript" which you allege show that Trump committed an illegal act.

Not Schiff's version, or the MSM's version, or the TDS inspired version; quote the EXACT WORDS that you believe prove Trump committed a crime.

Then cite to the specific statute which makes those words a criminal offense and quote the relevant portions of that statute.

You do realize that Trump can be impeached without having committed a crime, right?

I’m not saying he isn’t a criminal because we all know he is.

 

[Aglaopheme]

What law did he break??

And since when did breaking the law suddenly become an issue? Ahhh when it wasn't a Democrat doing it...gotchya!

See the previous comment. Also, see my comments earlier in this thread.